EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 2502
| Forum Index > Closed |
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. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
|
cLutZ
United States19574 Posts
On November 11 2015 02:59 Toadesstern wrote: not to mention that at some points the consumer flat out has no option to deny the product (assuming enough cash is there), which is the principal upon which free market & capitalism works. I can easily go on amazon and decide that I won't buy something because I think something's overpriced and that'll either lead to me finding it elsewhere cheaper or the realization that I'm a cheap fuck and it's just not viable any cheaper. Or I'll get rich making it myself for lots cheaper. With healthcare that doesn't reall work that well because you can't reasonably expect someone to just die on the operation table to stick it to the man in protest of the high prices. You don't have the option to pick another "supplier" because you might reasonably die before you get to another hospital in some cases. That isn't really the problem. Your insurance company would have pre-negotiated for an expense they anticipate they will likely incur (maybe not you on the operating table, but they know one of their insurees is going to be hit by a bus). This is also an event that makes perfect sense to insure. Its even plausible for the government to insure that expense for those who dont have insurance (which they did pre-Obamacare through Medicaid and EMPTALA). While this was a constant talking point pre-Obamacare, it really does not drive costs in America. One thing that does drive costs is, yes, we don't have monopoly bargaining power against drug/medical device companies. Another is that because healthcare is tax advantaged companies often offer healthcare insurance and coverage that covers every imaginable expense, even those that are recurring (visits to an eye doctor to update your glasses) and those that could be subject to pre-negotiation like a hip replacement. All this is layered on a system that by regulation requires doctors to be a part of almost everything, but also imposes high costs on becoming a doctor, who thus requires high compensation. Also, the FDA has the most difficult approval scheme of the major markets. Lastly, I will get to what I think is probably the real issue: what healthcare is everyone entitled to? Is it speedy access to state-of-the-art healthcare overseen by a university trained doctor? Because that is really what it seems like you are saying, which is not realistic, because no country does that. Most make decisions not to implement new, expensive, procedures until the costs come down and to skimp on end-of-life care. ^Thus, if we change all that, then we may get the American system at European costs. But, most proposals I've seen just get us the European system at American costs++ | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On November 11 2015 03:39 cLutZ wrote: You hit the nail on the head. Oh, and now mandating recurring expenses is the political talking point of preventative care. So go on and insure yourself against the risk of a sudden checkup, whose appointment eerily shows up at the worst times on the calendar. That isn't really the problem. Your insurance company would have pre-negotiated for an expense they anticipate they will likely incur (maybe not you on the operating table, but they know one of their insurees is going to be hit by a bus). This is also an event that makes perfect sense to insure. Its even plausible for the government to insure that expense for those who dont have insurance (which they did pre-Obamacare through Medicaid and EMPTALA). While this was a constant talking point pre-Obamacare, it really does not drive costs in America. One thing that does drive costs is, yes, we don't have monopoly bargaining power against drug/medical device companies. Another is that because healthcare is tax advantaged companies often offer healthcare insurance and coverage that covers every imaginable expense, even those that are recurring (visits to an eye doctor to update your glasses) and those that could be subject to pre-negotiation like a hip replacement. All this is layered on a system that by regulation requires doctors to be a part of almost everything, but also imposes high costs on becoming a doctor, who thus requires high compensation. Also, the FDA has the most difficult approval scheme of the major markets. Lastly, I will get to what I think is probably the real issue: what healthcare is everyone entitled to? Is it speedy access to state-of-the-art healthcare overseen by a university trained doctor? Because that is really what it seems like you are saying, which is not realistic, because no country does that. Most make decisions not to implement new, expensive, procedures until the costs come down and to skimp on end-of-life care. ^Thus, if we change all that, then we may get the American system at European costs. But, most proposals I've seen just get us the European system at American costs++ | ||
KwarK
United States44203 Posts
| ||
|
BallinWitStalin
1177 Posts
And if I need "state of the art" care I generally get it. My daughter just got a precautionary MRI (they didn't think there was anything wrong but just wanted to "make sure" because they don't take risks with young kids) like a month ago. Just to reiterate, the neurologist my daughter saw, for free, thought she was probably fine but, just to make sure, ordered a fucking MRI, for free. Did i mention that all of this precautionary, state-of-the art healthcare, provided by a "university educated" neurologist, was free (for me)? Honestly I don't understand what you guys think healthcare in other countries is like. I have only had awesome, positive experiences. | ||
|
Jormundr
United States1678 Posts
1. America spends the most on healthcare 2. If you buy something that is expensive that means its better. 3. Therefore we have the best healthcare in the world and everywhere else sucks. | ||
|
Simberto
Germany11941 Posts
Of course, what you are getting isn't really "free" either, you pay for it with your taxes or healthcare insurance payments all your life. Still a much better deal than in the US. | ||
|
Velr
Switzerland10929 Posts
As soon as he leaves US turf, its either just wrong or, in his bright moments, at least comically exaggerated. And to everyones surprise, Danglars jumps right in and applauds him for his bs. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
Jormundr
United States1678 Posts
| ||
|
Simberto
Germany11941 Posts
On November 11 2015 05:28 Plansix wrote: The problem in the US people get very concerned the government will “control their healthcare”. And then believe if they can choose it themselves, they are in control. When in reality, they are just turning over control to a faceless company that controls their healthcare. They pay either way, but that tiny act of picking the provider provides this illusion of freedom and choice. You could take a look at the german system. It is basically works more or less like single payer, but there are insurance companies you can choose from which are all basically the same (and all of them are nonprofits). They tend to barter collectively, and i honestly am not a 100% certain what exactly differantiates one from another (They all feel very much the same). But you can choose them  | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
| ||
|
Velr
Switzerland10929 Posts
You are actually hurting/in trouble --> go to the doctor/hospital --> get treated immediatly. You got some issue that should be looked at --> You make an appointment with your doctor and from there on he decides what will be done, you are not happy with your dcotors decision --> Feel free to visit another one. So horrible... Health insurance companies are also 100% private but all have to cover the same treatments (which includes basically everything, including preemptive care, you'll ever really need and has proven to be effective). | ||
|
CannonsNCarriers
United States638 Posts
| ||
|
Toadesstern
Germany16350 Posts
On November 11 2015 05:42 Simberto wrote: You could take a look at the german system. It is basically works more or less like single payer, but there are insurance companies you can choose from which are all basically the same (and all of them are nonprofits). They tend to barter collectively, and i honestly am not a 100% certain what exactly differantiates one from another (They all feel very much the same). But you can choose them unless some change happened that I somehow missed out on... we also have two different systems you can pick from if you want to. The "singleplayer" insurance you mentioned is one thing (you can pick a bunch of different but like you said they're essentially all the same) but we also have private insurance. If you're running a company you in fact have to go for that because usually your employer is in the mix for who's paying what, which doesn't work if you're self-employed. There was critique about it being a system of 2class healthcare since the private option ends up a bit more expensive but they (can) differ in that they cover more (thus more expensive) and you'll get appointments quicker on average. | ||
|
Paljas
Germany6926 Posts
On November 11 2015 05:42 Simberto wrote: You could take a look at the german system. It is basically works more or less like single payer, but there are insurance companies you can choose from which are all basically the same (and all of them are nonprofits). They tend to barter collectively, and i honestly am not a 100% certain what exactly differantiates one from another (They all feel very much the same). But you can choose them Its also a two class system, which benefits the rich. (as toad pointed out) | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On November 11 2015 06:30 Paljas wrote: Its also a two class system, which benefits the rich. (as toad pointed out) From my understanding, it would be an upgrade from the garbage system in the US that already does that. No system is perfect, but some are better than others. | ||
|
Velr
Switzerland10929 Posts
On November 11 2015 06:30 Paljas wrote: Its also a two class system, which benefits the rich. (as toad pointed out) Its impossible to not have a 2 (or actually way more) class system, no matter if there are private insurance plans or not. A person with more money to spend on his health will allways be able to get more/better care. To change this you would have to either prohibit doctors/hospitals from working privately or "overcome" (  ) capitalism.The job of a public health care system is not to get everyone the very best care that is avalaible. It is about granting people the best care that is proven to be effective and cost effective (weighted against the illness that is treated. If the very best treatment for the common cold costs 10'000$ public health care would and obviously should not pay for that). And yes, this leads to pelnty of moral questions when it comes to very expensive treatments for dire conditions, but this is just unavoidable, having no general health care is not a viable option because that just means that many people won't get any decent treatment all. | ||
| ||
