|
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. |
On April 15 2015 04:53 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2015 04:49 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 15 2015 04:43 Millitron wrote:On April 15 2015 04:40 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
Pharmaceutical spending is ~10% of healthcare spending. Even if we were subsidizing the rest of the world, you're talking small potatoes in the grand scheme of things. General medical equipment suffers from the same problems. Why does an X-ray cost hundreds? It takes seconds, and doesn't use anything up. The answer is the company that builds X-ray machines price gouges, and hospitals are forced to pass that cost on to the customer. I can also imagine resource low utilization rates causing the same issue. Do you have a source for your price gouging claim or is that just an assertion? I don't have a source, but much of the same setting is true for medical equipment as well as pharmaceuticals. Both need very long testing periods. Both are covered by insurance. Both take a great deal of research. As for low utilization rates, I find that hard to believe considering how packed the outpatient lab waiting room is.
Of the top 10 medical imaging manufacturers, only 2 are US-based, and only 1 can be considered a true giant in the field: GE. The other giants are Siemens, Fuji and Philips. While all of these companies might for some reason consipre to gouge the ripe for the picking US market, I think that is more a structural issue than the fact that they require a return-on-investment from spending in the US.
In fact, in all your ramblings there doesn't seem to be a coherent reason why the US should spend more than Europe except utter incompetence when negotiating with providers, which not only seems unlikely, but also has absolutely nothing to do with Obamacare (which you rant and rave against); in fact since Obamacare, the ever-increasing cost of healthcare has slowed (unknown whether this is due to Obamacare or other factors).
|
On April 15 2015 04:53 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2015 04:49 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 15 2015 04:43 Millitron wrote:On April 15 2015 04:40 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
Pharmaceutical spending is ~10% of healthcare spending. Even if we were subsidizing the rest of the world, you're talking small potatoes in the grand scheme of things. General medical equipment suffers from the same problems. Why does an X-ray cost hundreds? It takes seconds, and doesn't use anything up. The answer is the company that builds X-ray machines price gouges, and hospitals are forced to pass that cost on to the customer. I can also imagine resource low utilization rates causing the same issue. Do you have a source for your price gouging claim or is that just an assertion? I don't have a source, but much of the same setting is true for medical equipment as well as pharmaceuticals. Both need very long testing periods. Both are covered by insurance. Both take a great deal of research. As for low utilization rates, I find that hard to believe considering how packed the outpatient lab waiting room is.
Queues can be deceiving if you're going off of a small sample size. You'll often have periods of high activity, and long queues, followed by long periods of low activity and short queues, unless you have a good scheduling system.
If the machine really is being used a lot, than the cost of the machine may not be a very big factor at all. You really need information to figure out what the big cost drivers are.
|
On April 15 2015 05:07 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2015 04:53 Millitron wrote:On April 15 2015 04:49 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 15 2015 04:43 Millitron wrote:On April 15 2015 04:40 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
Pharmaceutical spending is ~10% of healthcare spending. Even if we were subsidizing the rest of the world, you're talking small potatoes in the grand scheme of things. General medical equipment suffers from the same problems. Why does an X-ray cost hundreds? It takes seconds, and doesn't use anything up. The answer is the company that builds X-ray machines price gouges, and hospitals are forced to pass that cost on to the customer. I can also imagine resource low utilization rates causing the same issue. Do you have a source for your price gouging claim or is that just an assertion? I don't have a source, but much of the same setting is true for medical equipment as well as pharmaceuticals. Both need very long testing periods. Both are covered by insurance. Both take a great deal of research. As for low utilization rates, I find that hard to believe considering how packed the outpatient lab waiting room is. Of the top 10 medical imaging manufacturers, only 2 are US-based, and only 1 can be considered a true giant in the field: GE. The other giants are Siemens, Fuji and Philips. While all of these companies might for some reason consipre to gouge the ripe for the picking US market, I think that is more a structural issue than the fact that they require a return-on-investment from spending in the US. In fact, in all your ramblings there doesn't seem to be a coherent reason why the US should spend more than Europe except utter incompetence when negotiating with providers, which not only seems unlikely, but also has absolutely nothing to do with Obamacare (which you rant and rave against); in fact since Obamacare, the ever-increasing cost of healthcare has slowed (unknown whether this is due to Obamacare or other factors).
I think we have to give the ACA some credit for bending the cost curve. There is no doubt that having to send rebate checks out (or credit the sum toward future premiums) if they don't spend the money on actually covering the costs of medical attention, curbed insurers ability to just raise prices independent of any increase in expenses (just to boost profits)
WASHINGTON -- An obscure Obamacare feature may net health insurance customers $332 million this year.
That's the total insurance companies will have to give back to customers this year under an Affordable Care Act provision designed to keep companies from overcharging consumers, the Department of Health and Human Services announced on Thursday. Including this year, consumers will have recovered a total of $1.9 billion from insurance companies since the rule took effect in 2011, according to the department.
Under President Barack Obama's signature health care reform law, insurance companies must spend at least 80 percent of the premiums they collect on actual medical care, rather than on overhead and profit. They are required to give rebates to consumers, or to their employers in the case of job-based insurance, if they fail to meet that standard. Close to 7 million people are due refunds by Aug. 1, with an average of $80, according to a report issued by the department.
I imagine it's not the only reason the curve has been bent but it's undeniably a part of it. Just one of many aspects of the ACA that republicans want to repeal, but have no replacement for.
|
On April 15 2015 05:00 Velr wrote:
You in general should just stop talking about european healthcare systems because:
1: You have no clue about them.
2: They vary widely from country to country.
3: You think there are waiting lines in pharmacies because... I don't know, no one does, because these don't exist, at least not more than at your average walmart....
I wasn't the one who brought up waiting for pharmacies. People do wait for treatment. If you want elective surgery for a chronic problem, you're out of luck and must wait quite awhile. There is rationing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_England#Patient_experience
If your problem isn't immediately life-threatening, you could wait weeks just to start the process.
On April 15 2015 05:07 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2015 04:53 Millitron wrote:On April 15 2015 04:49 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 15 2015 04:43 Millitron wrote:On April 15 2015 04:40 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
Pharmaceutical spending is ~10% of healthcare spending. Even if we were subsidizing the rest of the world, you're talking small potatoes in the grand scheme of things. General medical equipment suffers from the same problems. Why does an X-ray cost hundreds? It takes seconds, and doesn't use anything up. The answer is the company that builds X-ray machines price gouges, and hospitals are forced to pass that cost on to the customer. I can also imagine resource low utilization rates causing the same issue. Do you have a source for your price gouging claim or is that just an assertion? I don't have a source, but much of the same setting is true for medical equipment as well as pharmaceuticals. Both need very long testing periods. Both are covered by insurance. Both take a great deal of research. As for low utilization rates, I find that hard to believe considering how packed the outpatient lab waiting room is. Of the top 10 medical imaging manufacturers, only 2 are US-based, and only 1 can be considered a true giant in the field: GE. The other giants are Siemens, Fuji and Philips. While all of these companies might for some reason consipre to gouge the ripe for the picking US market, I think that is more a structural issue than the fact that they require a return-on-investment from spending in the US. In fact, in all your ramblings there doesn't seem to be a coherent reason why the US should spend more than Europe except utter incompetence when negotiating with providers, which not only seems unlikely, but also has absolutely nothing to do with Obamacare (which you rant and rave against); in fact since Obamacare, the ever-increasing cost of healthcare has slowed (unknown whether this is due to Obamacare or other factors).
The US spends more because we mandate bare minimum coverages from insurance companies. It's tough for insurance companies to negotiate with providers when said provides know the insurance companies are bound by law to cover said service. It's just like what you said earlier, that patients wouldn't choose to die instead of paying insane prices.
We need either a single payer system, or we need insurance companies to be free to pick and choose what to cover (within the bounds of their contracts of course). Anything else stacks the deck in favor of manufacturers.
|
let's get some science in this bitch:
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/XO02f8C.png)
http://i.imgur.com/XO02f8C.png
Didn't exactly know what category to pick.. there was a lot to choose from that had some kind of pharmacy in it so I just went with one of them + medecine as a general subject (I guess that includes them all?).
In an attempt to make it more postable on TL the headers got a little less readable, first is Biochem (medical), second is Medical overall, third is everything overall.
I just took the 10 nations with the most papers and divided that by population (or population / 1000 to not get retarded numbers). Doesn't mean those are the top 10 per capita as there could easily be something cut off somewhere on spot 11 in total numbers but a lot better in per capita as it just didn't make the list for me.
I could very well have some typo's in there... like some missing 0's when I copy pasted population and had to delete out all the ',' and '.'... I hope I don't 
Seriously though, why would anyone list population as XXX,XXX,XXX.0? What's the .0 doing at the end?
/Edit: Fuck, I think there's a digit missing in the Overall chart for the US? So I'd have to divide that by 10 I guess
/Edit2: Should be fixed now
|
To:Millitron
X-ray machines arent THAT expensive (a few hundred thousand $ for brand new fancy unit) . And they are also very durable. You can easily use them a hundred times a day for 20 years with service once a year and major checkup once a 5 years. Even assuming small number of uses (like 20 times a day) and low pricing ~200$ a checkup assuming 250 days of work a year gives 1 000 000$, easily paying for unit, electricity, security, servicing and technician to operate it in one year. Rest is pure gain.
With regular servicing X-ray machine can easily work for 30 or even 50 years. It is standard practice to buy used units (after revitalization) to save money. And You can get used X-ray machine in very good condition for several dozen k$. There is really no reason to pay several hundread $ for X-ray other than being milked for money.
Source: I actualy work with industrial (which are more fancy than medical) X-rays.
|
The more we debate this, the more it feels as if americans basically have some sort of collective stockholm syndrome where they just can't accept how shitty their system is, and try to find something positive about it. And finally we have reached the point where the positive about it is how shitty it is, leading to them spending more than they have to, which is interpreted as "subsidizing the rest of the world".
Basically, there are few positive things to say for the US healthcare system. It MIGHT be better for you if you are a millionaire. That is pretty much the only positive i can come up with.
And for some reason you are stoudly opposed to any attempt at fixing it. The ACA is still shit. It is LESS shit than what you had before, though. And there does not appear to be a lot of political will of just accepting how shit your current system is, throwing it out of the window completely, and adopting a working system from another place (There are many options to choose from) and possibly changing that slightly so it feels a bit less socialist because americans really hate anything that involves being forced to care about other people.
The US spends more because we mandate bare minimum coverages from insurance companies. It's tough for insurance companies to negotiate with providers when said provides know the insurance companies are bound by law to cover said service. It's just like what you said earlier, that patients wouldn't choose to die instead of paying insane prices.
This is nonsense. We have insurance companies in Germany. They are bound by law to provide a lot of care (There are few things they DON'T have to provide). Can you explain why we don't have that problem?
|
yeah, because this thread represents "americans."
|
Ok, sorry, i shouldn't have generalized in that way. It still seems like a pretty popular opinion, but there are probably who think otherwise. But apparently not enough to actually lead to political changes, so it appears that they are in a minority. I should have put in an "A lot of" or something along those lines.
It is just this really weird mentality that i don't get. There is pretty much incontrovertible evidence that the US system is a lot more expensive for no added gain compared to most other civilized countries, while also having more inequality and the disadvantage of ruining a lot of peoples lives because they can't pay for treatments and/or go into debt because of it, and instead of going "Hm, yes, that is weird, something appears to be wrong and maybe we should look at what other countries are doing better" there is this american exceptionalism in a lot of people making excuses and trying to find one single thing that the US system is better at, because a US system obviously couldn't be worse than that of another country, especially some socialist european stuff.
|
On April 15 2015 05:37 Simberto wrote:The more we debate this, the more it feels as if americans basically have some sort of collective stockholm syndrome where they just can't accept how shitty their system is, and try to find something positive about it. And finally we have reached the point where the positive about it is how shitty it is, leading to them spending more than they have to, which is interpreted as "subsidizing the rest of the world". Basically, there are few positive things to say for the US healthcare system. It MIGHT be better for you if you are a millionaire. That is pretty much the only positive i can come up with. And for some reason you are stoudly opposed to any attempt at fixing it. The ACA is still shit. It is LESS shit than what you had before, though. And there does not appear to be a lot of political will of just accepting how shit your current system is, throwing it out of the window completely, and adopting a working system from another place (There are many options to choose from) and possibly changing that slightly so it feels a bit less socialist because americans really hate anything that involves being forced to care about other people. Show nested quote +
The US spends more because we mandate bare minimum coverages from insurance companies. It's tough for insurance companies to negotiate with providers when said provides know the insurance companies are bound by law to cover said service. It's just like what you said earlier, that patients wouldn't choose to die instead of paying insane prices.
This is nonsense. We have insurance companies in Germany. They are bound by law to provide a lot of care (There are few things they DON'T have to provide). Can you explain why we don't have that problem?
The problem with the ACA is that it works a little. It's reduced the political pressure to find an actually good solution.
You don't have the problem because the manufacturers focus their gouging on the US market. I imagine you also have some supply-side price controls, not just demand-side regulation.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
interesting that some are critical of a more top down system for either departing from market or departing from autonomy. medical market has some basic features that more or less naturally already bring these features into existence rven in a 'private' system. the mkt in the u.s. is mediated between insurance and providers, patient has not the knowledge to not rely on experts or external signals of quality. most critically, there is no price transparency or choice. insurance is also a good risk smoothing andd burden sharing mechanism, but it would also mean departure from individual mkt mechanics.
merely insisting on private property rights does not a free market make. it would be delusional and costly to pretend otherwise.
also, price of care is either high for individual or it is distributed to the healthy. doesnt matter if most people face fairly low premiums (and these are not low for decent plans) when there is so much inefficiency overall
|
On April 15 2015 05:55 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2015 05:37 Simberto wrote:The more we debate this, the more it feels as if americans basically have some sort of collective stockholm syndrome where they just can't accept how shitty their system is, and try to find something positive about it. And finally we have reached the point where the positive about it is how shitty it is, leading to them spending more than they have to, which is interpreted as "subsidizing the rest of the world". Basically, there are few positive things to say for the US healthcare system. It MIGHT be better for you if you are a millionaire. That is pretty much the only positive i can come up with. And for some reason you are stoudly opposed to any attempt at fixing it. The ACA is still shit. It is LESS shit than what you had before, though. And there does not appear to be a lot of political will of just accepting how shit your current system is, throwing it out of the window completely, and adopting a working system from another place (There are many options to choose from) and possibly changing that slightly so it feels a bit less socialist because americans really hate anything that involves being forced to care about other people.
The US spends more because we mandate bare minimum coverages from insurance companies. It's tough for insurance companies to negotiate with providers when said provides know the insurance companies are bound by law to cover said service. It's just like what you said earlier, that patients wouldn't choose to die instead of paying insane prices.
This is nonsense. We have insurance companies in Germany. They are bound by law to provide a lot of care (There are few things they DON'T have to provide). Can you explain why we don't have that problem? The problem with the ACA is that it works a little. It's reduced the political pressure to find an actually good solution. .
Implying there was a will before.
Besides, with all the shouting the Republicans are doing they make a very good show of wanting to find a good solution.
Except everyone knows they don't actually give a fuck about the problems with the US healthcare because if they did they would have done more then just shout and made an actual solution.
You might have a point that the ACA will reduce the incentive to fix more problems but I will tell you that without it nothing would be done either and your country would be in a worse state healthcare wise then it is now.
|
Simberto as I've tried to explain to you guys many times, the US system has always been cheap and effective for the majority. Employer paid healthcare was always the burden on the employer, and cheap to the employee. Only in recent years have employers been able to push those costs onto the employees. Yet there are still a lot of people in that great system and have cheap, effective healthcare and they don't want to lose that.
On the spending side heathcare has been a major source of middle class jobs. People don't want to lose that either.
Moreover, since the system was mainly a burden on the employer for decades, when people are told that something 'is too expensive', either by an insurer or the government, they view the news with suspicion. They don't realize how expensive things have become and so they think changes mean getting the shaft.
|
On April 15 2015 06:02 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2015 05:55 Millitron wrote:On April 15 2015 05:37 Simberto wrote:The more we debate this, the more it feels as if americans basically have some sort of collective stockholm syndrome where they just can't accept how shitty their system is, and try to find something positive about it. And finally we have reached the point where the positive about it is how shitty it is, leading to them spending more than they have to, which is interpreted as "subsidizing the rest of the world". Basically, there are few positive things to say for the US healthcare system. It MIGHT be better for you if you are a millionaire. That is pretty much the only positive i can come up with. And for some reason you are stoudly opposed to any attempt at fixing it. The ACA is still shit. It is LESS shit than what you had before, though. And there does not appear to be a lot of political will of just accepting how shit your current system is, throwing it out of the window completely, and adopting a working system from another place (There are many options to choose from) and possibly changing that slightly so it feels a bit less socialist because americans really hate anything that involves being forced to care about other people.
The US spends more because we mandate bare minimum coverages from insurance companies. It's tough for insurance companies to negotiate with providers when said provides know the insurance companies are bound by law to cover said service. It's just like what you said earlier, that patients wouldn't choose to die instead of paying insane prices.
This is nonsense. We have insurance companies in Germany. They are bound by law to provide a lot of care (There are few things they DON'T have to provide). Can you explain why we don't have that problem? The problem with the ACA is that it works a little. It's reduced the political pressure to find an actually good solution. . Implying there was a will before. Besides, with all the shouting the Republicans are doing they make a very good show of wanting to find a good solution. Except everyone knows they don't actually give a fuck about the problems with the US healthcare because if they did they would have done more then just shout and made an actual solution.You might have a point that the ACA will reduce the incentive to fix more problems but I will tell you that without it nothing would be done either and your country would be in a worse state healthcare wise then it is now.
Both parties have been making changes for decades and trying to do more.
|
On April 15 2015 06:03 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
On the spending side heathcare has been a major source of middle class jobs. People don't want to lose that either.
paying twice as much for something doesn't mean twice as many people work on it. The excessive cost of US healthcare does not provide more jobs Oo
|
On April 15 2015 06:05 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2015 06:02 Gorsameth wrote:On April 15 2015 05:55 Millitron wrote:On April 15 2015 05:37 Simberto wrote:The more we debate this, the more it feels as if americans basically have some sort of collective stockholm syndrome where they just can't accept how shitty their system is, and try to find something positive about it. And finally we have reached the point where the positive about it is how shitty it is, leading to them spending more than they have to, which is interpreted as "subsidizing the rest of the world". Basically, there are few positive things to say for the US healthcare system. It MIGHT be better for you if you are a millionaire. That is pretty much the only positive i can come up with. And for some reason you are stoudly opposed to any attempt at fixing it. The ACA is still shit. It is LESS shit than what you had before, though. And there does not appear to be a lot of political will of just accepting how shit your current system is, throwing it out of the window completely, and adopting a working system from another place (There are many options to choose from) and possibly changing that slightly so it feels a bit less socialist because americans really hate anything that involves being forced to care about other people.
The US spends more because we mandate bare minimum coverages from insurance companies. It's tough for insurance companies to negotiate with providers when said provides know the insurance companies are bound by law to cover said service. It's just like what you said earlier, that patients wouldn't choose to die instead of paying insane prices.
This is nonsense. We have insurance companies in Germany. They are bound by law to provide a lot of care (There are few things they DON'T have to provide). Can you explain why we don't have that problem? The problem with the ACA is that it works a little. It's reduced the political pressure to find an actually good solution. . Implying there was a will before. Besides, with all the shouting the Republicans are doing they make a very good show of wanting to find a good solution. Except everyone knows they don't actually give a fuck about the problems with the US healthcare because if they did they would have done more then just shout and made an actual solution.You might have a point that the ACA will reduce the incentive to fix more problems but I will tell you that without it nothing would be done either and your country would be in a worse state healthcare wise then it is now. Both parties have been making changes for decades and trying to do more.
Then where is that Republican plan?
|
I wasn't the one who brought up waiting for pharmacies. People do wait for treatment. If you want elective surgery for a chronic problem, you're out of luck and must wait quite awhile. There is rationing.
My mom had a chronic bad hip, which she never really cared much about until 3 weeks ago. She's now 3 days into recovering, waited roughly 2 weeks for the surgery (after years of not telling the doctors because she's stupid that way).
If i have the choice between paying hundreds of thousands of monies, or wait 2 weeks.. Well, honestly, that's pretty simple. In fact, i do have a chronic condition too (cluster-headaches), and waited (i think) 8 days for my appointment for the brainscan. I do think that's reasonable, because it also allowed me to schedule work etc around it. (edit: and i obviously didn't pay a dime)
Now, i can only talk about german (and nowadays also for the welsh) system, some people here (mainly/entirely americans) seem to have a very weird picture of it.
edit: and i've never, ever waited longer than 5 minutes in a pharmacy, something that weirds me out so hard over here in the UK. It takes SO much longer because of the weird "work-split" they do (three people behind a counter counting pills or something, i don't even know), it's actually really aggravating.
|
On April 15 2015 06:08 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +I wasn't the one who brought up waiting for pharmacies. People do wait for treatment. If you want elective surgery for a chronic problem, you're out of luck and must wait quite awhile. There is rationing. My mom had a chronic bad hip, which she never really cared much about until 3 weeks ago. She's now 3 days into recovering, waited roughly 2 weeks for the surgery (after years of not telling the doctors because she's stupid that way). If i have the choice between paying hundreds of thousands of monies, or wait 2 weeks.. Well, honestly, that's pretty simple. In fact, i do have a chronic condition too (cluster-headaches), and waited (i think) 8 days for my appointment for the brainscan. I do think that's reasonable, because it also allowed me to schedule work etc around it. (edit: and i obviously didn't pay a dime) Now, i can only talk about german (and nowadays also for the welsh) system, some people here (mainly/entirely americans) seem to have a very weird picture of it. edit: and i've never, ever waited longer than 5 minutes in a pharmacy, something that weirds me out so hard over here in the UK. It takes SO much longer because of the weird "work-split" they do (three people behind a counter counting pills or something, i don't even know), it's actually really aggravating.
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2013/10/19/heal-o19.html
People wait months, and are often even outright denied treatment for real illnesses in the UK.
As for waiting at the pharmacy, bigger chains like CVS have you get your refill over the phone, and it's ready by the time you get to the store to pick it up. I suspect it's like that in the EU as well, but like I said, I wasn't talking about lines at the pharmacy anyways.
|
On April 15 2015 06:07 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2015 06:05 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 15 2015 06:02 Gorsameth wrote:On April 15 2015 05:55 Millitron wrote:On April 15 2015 05:37 Simberto wrote:The more we debate this, the more it feels as if americans basically have some sort of collective stockholm syndrome where they just can't accept how shitty their system is, and try to find something positive about it. And finally we have reached the point where the positive about it is how shitty it is, leading to them spending more than they have to, which is interpreted as "subsidizing the rest of the world". Basically, there are few positive things to say for the US healthcare system. It MIGHT be better for you if you are a millionaire. That is pretty much the only positive i can come up with. And for some reason you are stoudly opposed to any attempt at fixing it. The ACA is still shit. It is LESS shit than what you had before, though. And there does not appear to be a lot of political will of just accepting how shit your current system is, throwing it out of the window completely, and adopting a working system from another place (There are many options to choose from) and possibly changing that slightly so it feels a bit less socialist because americans really hate anything that involves being forced to care about other people.
The US spends more because we mandate bare minimum coverages from insurance companies. It's tough for insurance companies to negotiate with providers when said provides know the insurance companies are bound by law to cover said service. It's just like what you said earlier, that patients wouldn't choose to die instead of paying insane prices.
This is nonsense. We have insurance companies in Germany. They are bound by law to provide a lot of care (There are few things they DON'T have to provide). Can you explain why we don't have that problem? The problem with the ACA is that it works a little. It's reduced the political pressure to find an actually good solution. . Implying there was a will before. Besides, with all the shouting the Republicans are doing they make a very good show of wanting to find a good solution. Except everyone knows they don't actually give a fuck about the problems with the US healthcare because if they did they would have done more then just shout and made an actual solution.You might have a point that the ACA will reduce the incentive to fix more problems but I will tell you that without it nothing would be done either and your country would be in a worse state healthcare wise then it is now. Both parties have been making changes for decades and trying to do more. Then where is that Republican plan?
Because that one thing is the ultimate arbiter of giving a fuck?
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
that would mean a political need to improve the nhs. funding, more indian docs etc. the program itself is hugely popular as a part of social positive right, as world socialist union or w/e would tell you
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
