|
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 July 02 2017 03:30 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2017 03:13 LegalLord wrote:
Every American I know who has ever had an emergency condition abroad has spoke in glowing terms about their experiences with the UHC system in Europe. At some point it's just time to admit that the US got it totally wrong and fix that shit. Also, fun fact: The danish system costs less public money then the US system. And the US system also costs additional loads of private money. http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/issue-briefs/2015/oct/us-health-care-from-a-global-perspectiveI'd highly suggest you take a look at the numbers to see just how shitty the US system is in comparison to basically anything. The US system is just inexcusably bad by basically any comparison. The only reason you don't have an uprising going on is that most of the people in the US simply don't realize that healthcare doesn't have to be that shitty.
Sadly, the best way to have this shown to people is for them to leave the country and have something happen, but so few people leave the country as it is.
|
On July 02 2017 03:45 Gahlo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2017 03:30 Simberto wrote:On July 02 2017 03:13 LegalLord wrote:
Every American I know who has ever had an emergency condition abroad has spoke in glowing terms about their experiences with the UHC system in Europe. At some point it's just time to admit that the US got it totally wrong and fix that shit. Also, fun fact: The danish system costs less public money then the US system. And the US system also costs additional loads of private money. http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/issue-briefs/2015/oct/us-health-care-from-a-global-perspectiveI'd highly suggest you take a look at the numbers to see just how shitty the US system is in comparison to basically anything. The US system is just inexcusably bad by basically any comparison. The only reason you don't have an uprising going on is that most of the people in the US simply don't realize that healthcare doesn't have to be that shitty. Sadly, the best way to have this shown to people is for them to leave the country and have something happen, but so few people leave the country as it is.
I wonder how we compare to other countries (I don't think Europe counts unless your counting it as leaving Europe) ~64% can't leave the country because we don't have passports, so at most ~36% of Americans have visited another country (Some states have enhanced ID"s that allow travel to Canada/Mexico so that could actually be slightly higher).
Would be interesting just to poll people who have had a medical experience outside of the US to compare them to people who haven't.
EDIT: But I turned on Fox News for some 4th of July coverage and my god... They were unironically talking about how they can't understand why millennials aren't especially patriotic (~1/3 said they were not patriotic or just a little). Pining over how terrible it is that kids aren't indoctrinated with the idea that America is the best country in the world by every measure. Sad that some schools are not forcing kids to pledge allegiance to a country that may or may not respect their constitutional rights. Oh and upset that kids aren't learning history, but not the history of the savage and brutal ravaging of North America and it's inhabitants by Europeans, or the enslavement of countless people and subsequent sortaslavery, segregation, and back to sortaslavery in prisons. The FBI's role in undermining civil rights and economic justice, the CIA's interference in democratic elections and assassinations. None of that stuff, they just need to hear more about how amazing America's history is and then they will worship at her alter.
|
On July 02 2017 03:55 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2017 03:45 Gahlo wrote:On July 02 2017 03:30 Simberto wrote:On July 02 2017 03:13 LegalLord wrote:
Every American I know who has ever had an emergency condition abroad has spoke in glowing terms about their experiences with the UHC system in Europe. At some point it's just time to admit that the US got it totally wrong and fix that shit. Also, fun fact: The danish system costs less public money then the US system. And the US system also costs additional loads of private money. http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/issue-briefs/2015/oct/us-health-care-from-a-global-perspectiveI'd highly suggest you take a look at the numbers to see just how shitty the US system is in comparison to basically anything. The US system is just inexcusably bad by basically any comparison. The only reason you don't have an uprising going on is that most of the people in the US simply don't realize that healthcare doesn't have to be that shitty. Sadly, the best way to have this shown to people is for them to leave the country and have something happen, but so few people leave the country as it is. I wonder how we compare to other countries (I don't think Europe counts unless your counting it as leaving Europe) ~64% can't leave the country because we don't have passports, so at most ~36% of Americans have visited another country (Some states have enhanced ID"s that allow travel to Canada/Mexico so that could actually be slightly higher). Would be interesting just to poll people who have had a medical experience outside of the US to compare them to people who haven't.
There's also the issue that being such a big country, a lot of stuff is easily solved by just going to a different part of it. So unless you're destination tripping there isn't a lot to go out there for.
|
On July 02 2017 03:58 Gahlo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2017 03:55 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 02 2017 03:45 Gahlo wrote:On July 02 2017 03:30 Simberto wrote:On July 02 2017 03:13 LegalLord wrote:
Every American I know who has ever had an emergency condition abroad has spoke in glowing terms about their experiences with the UHC system in Europe. At some point it's just time to admit that the US got it totally wrong and fix that shit. Also, fun fact: The danish system costs less public money then the US system. And the US system also costs additional loads of private money. http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/issue-briefs/2015/oct/us-health-care-from-a-global-perspectiveI'd highly suggest you take a look at the numbers to see just how shitty the US system is in comparison to basically anything. The US system is just inexcusably bad by basically any comparison. The only reason you don't have an uprising going on is that most of the people in the US simply don't realize that healthcare doesn't have to be that shitty. Sadly, the best way to have this shown to people is for them to leave the country and have something happen, but so few people leave the country as it is. I wonder how we compare to other countries (I don't think Europe counts unless your counting it as leaving Europe) ~64% can't leave the country because we don't have passports, so at most ~36% of Americans have visited another country (Some states have enhanced ID"s that allow travel to Canada/Mexico so that could actually be slightly higher). Would be interesting just to poll people who have had a medical experience outside of the US to compare them to people who haven't. There's also the issue that being such a big country, a lot of stuff is easily solved by just going to a different part of it. So unless you're destination tripping there isn't a lot to go out there for.
While looking for the info on how many people leave I stumbled on the fact that it turns out that our health costs are so absurd that insurers will actually pay for you to travel to India or Costa Rica to have a procedure done, rather than just pay for you to have it done in the US.
|
I doubt that moving to different parts of the US gives you the standard of care everyone else living in a high income country expects in healthcare without having insurance.
|
On July 02 2017 04:11 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
I doubt that moving to different parts of the US gives you the standard of care everyone else living in a high income country expects in healthcare without having insurance.
That's the solution floating around congress. Basically allow states to create their own systems and go from there. As if we don't have a mountain of evidence suggesting our current system is shit (for those who aren't wealthy) by comparison or that people aren't dying from completely preventable/treatable causes in the meantime.
I don't have the stats handy but I'd say with confidence that a lack of infrastructure and healthcare (including mental) has resulted in far more American deaths than Al Qaeda and ISIS combined, likely more than they can even imagine having a legitimate chance at killing.
Effectively they are killing far more Americans by diverting resources away from the things they need to wasteful bombs, pointless infrastructure project in other countries, etc...
|
the passport bit made me wonder so I checked the landsize; the US has more than twice the land area of the EU. I thought it was closer than that.
|
On July 02 2017 04:31 zlefin wrote:
the passport bit made me wonder so I checked the landsize; the US has more than twice the land area of the EU. I thought it was closer than that.
Yeah, it's a pretty stark difference. France is one of EU's biggest countries and is about the size of Texas. They also both have a Paris.
|
On July 02 2017 04:31 zlefin wrote:
the passport bit made me wonder so I checked the landsize; the US has more than twice the land area of the EU. I thought it was closer than that.
The EU is not the same as Europe though. No Norway, no Ukraine/Belarus, no former Yugoslavia, no western part of Russia
Wikipedia's Europe definition is about the same size as the US at 10 million square kilometers
But yeah the US is a very large landmass 
|
United States43534 Posts
If one or two states could implement a working public healthcare system where a state ID is all that is required to access single payer, free at the point of delivery, healthcare then perhaps we could see it spreading.
|
On July 02 2017 04:51 KwarK wrote:
If one or two states could implement a working public healthcare system where a state ID is all that is required to access single payer, free at the point of delivery, healthcare then perhaps we could see it spreading.
The problem is that I'm not sure anyone could get the financing to work without a national effort to drive prices down.
|
On July 02 2017 05:05 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2017 04:51 KwarK wrote:
If one or two states could implement a working public healthcare system where a state ID is all that is required to access single payer, free at the point of delivery, healthcare then perhaps we could see it spreading. The problem is that I'm not sure anyone could get the financing to work without a national effort to drive prices down.
The federal government would need to do some tamping down of prescription drugs. But a state like CA or NV would handle it.
|
Danglars - can we revisit this?
On July 01 2017 06:15 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2017 03:34 Mercy13 wrote:On July 01 2017 02:22 Danglars wrote:On July 01 2017 01:58 Mercy13 wrote:On July 01 2017 01:26 Danglars wrote:On July 01 2017 01:13 TheTenthDoc wrote:On July 01 2017 01:10 Danglars wrote:On July 01 2017 00:53 farvacola wrote:
Yes, every plan proposed by Republicans is similarly terrible. "No matter what Republicans propose" is fatuous nonsense, to borrow a pedantic word. You don't find it even a little funny that a full repeal vs a very expensive Obamacare 2.0 gets the same coverage score? I don't even like the bill and was rolling my eyes. To play off your post, you don't have to act like a humorlous bore even if it's politics. Full repeal vs. replacement doesn't matter when they all delete the Medicaid insurance expansion in one way or another. Everything else is a drop in the bucket compared to that. If anything, this just shows that none of their "2.0s" are actually designed to increase coverage in a meaningful way. Which is almost certainly the case since the authors of these bills don't care about the coverage numbers at all. When you consider that health outcomes for people on Medicaid are provably no better than the uninsured, the value of coverage numbers related to expanded Medicaid coverage decays massively. And making insurance shittier for all makes nothing matter on a wide variety of fronts. Congratulations, you're covered, you don't qualify for subsidies, you're paying almost full price for your medication, and your plans more than twice as expensive with more than double the deductible! Join our statistic of coverage successes! If you're referring to the Oregon study, you have to wildly misinterpret it's results to reach that conclusion. Is the expansion the crucial measure saving millions from death? I wouldn't need to cite the study if the rhetoric wasn't already at the level of Medicaid expansion acting like the divine intervention of God. Those despicable individuals whose tweets several cited a few pages back remind me how detached the debate has become from solid grounding in the federal programs, the ACA changes, and the bills under consideration in the House (formerly) and Senate. Are you referring to the Oregon study? If so I'm happy to cite it. It had it's limitations, but still reached some interesting conclusions: The Oregon Experiment — Effects of Medicaid on Clinical OutcomesMedicaid coverage did not have a significant effect on measures of blood pressure, cholesterol, or glycated hemoglobin. I assume this is what you're referring to when you say that access to Medicaid has been proven to not improve health outcomes. As you are probably well-aware, these three measures are not the only way to measure health outcomes. It should be noted that the sample size of the study was too small to look at morbidity or cancer treatment, among other things. The study did find that access to Medicaid increased the percentage of people who reported that their health had improved over the previous year, and reduced financial hardship from catastrophic medical expenses. Keeping in mind that this study had a small sample size and was limited to one state, it is totally reasonable to have a discussion around it about whether the amount we spend on Medicaid is worth the identified benefits. It would also be great to discuss improvements which can be made to Medicaid so that the treatments provided do a better job of treating blood pressure, cholesterol, etc. However the current debate isn't about the best way to provide healthcare to poor people. The current debate is over whether a tax cut for rich people should be paid for by taking health coverage away from millions of poor people. Conservatives supporting the healthcare bill (I know you're not in this group) don't give a shit about health outcomes. Oh, is that the status of the current debate? Tax cuts for rich people should be paid by taking away health coverage from millions of poor people? I almost took you seriously. But if that's your game, the current debate is on making healthy people the slaves of the poor and infirm, and crashing the insurance markets while trying to dodge the blame. If you want to up it to Warren/Clinton/Sanders heights, you can add on making forcing free citizens to pay for the massacre of innocent women and children. I'm a little tired of the policy as atrocity game, but if you want everyone to emerge callous and flip it around every time, you're doing an excellent job. I'd be happy to revisit and invest the time necessary into these long back and forths when Congress comes back from recess and the discourse is less reminiscent of Calling your political opponents kulaks. I'm already mad enough that I'll probably be forced to vote Trump again if this is the opposition's stance.
In the above exchange you basically accused me of arguing in bad faith because I characterized the BCRA and AHCA as being designed with a view to cutting taxes on rich people rather than reforming the healthcare system.
I maintained that the foregoing is a reasonable interpretation of the bills and explained why*, and asked you to provide your own interpretation. As far as I can tell you refrained from doing so.
If you are going to accuse me of arguing in bad faith the least you can do is supply your own interpretation of the health care bills, and explain what they accomplish beyond cutting taxes for the wealthy.
* they maintain the basic structure of the ACA, while taking a ton of money out of the system in order to pay for tax cuts primarily for wealthy people. The conservative reforms they include (allowing states to waive essential benefits and coverage for pre-existing conditions) are minor.
|
Vox interviewed a group of congressional Democrats about what reforms they would propose to the healthcare system if the Republicans asked for their input. Their answers were... unimpressive... to say the least:
How do congressional Democrats want to fix Obamacare? We asked 8 of them.
A few highlights:
Jeff Stein
So I’m talking about a hypothetical world in which the bill is defeated. Is there anything else policy-wise to improve the American health care system? For instance, Sen. Warner talked to me about reviving the “copper plans” on the exchanges.
Ed Markey (D-MA)
First, the principle thing is, we have to keep all the funding, and if they don’t agree on that, the whole thing is operating on a flawed premise.
I don’t understand [about the copper plans. Aide interjects: “He’s got to run.”]
...
Jeff Stein
What’s the main policy fix Democrats want to see to Obamacare, assuming Republicans move on from this bill completely?
Joe Manchin
First of all, we don’t want you to callously throw people off.
Jeff Stein
But assuming they kill this bill.
Joe Manchin (D-WV)
If you’re giving me the expansion, give me some instructions of how I can keep it. Of how I can live a better lifestyle. You never told me anything. For the last 20 years, I’ve been going to the emergency room. I know it’s high-cost. That’s all I have. I have no options. So if I want any type of health care, I’d go to the emergency room. Show me how to live a better-quality and healthier life.
We haven’t done anything. When we say [the bill] doesn’t have any heart and soul, if you’ve got a heart and soul and a little bit of compassion in you, let me try to help you."
...
Jeff Stein
In a world where this bill is dead and buried — “we give up, we have to work with Schumer and Pelosi” — what should Democrats’ top demand be for proactive fixes to the health care system?
Carolyn Maloney (D-NY)
When we get to that point, we’ll discuss it. Right now we’re focused on trying to save bill, because the bill they put forward is very detrimental. According to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, it would remove health care for 22 million people, it would raise premiums, particularly for older people, and is particularly dangerous for women.
They’re not coming to the table and say[ing], “Work with us.” We’re willing to go to the table and work with them.
Jeff Stein
But when that happens, what will the policies be?
Carolyn Maloney
When that happens, we’ll put our policies forward.
This is frankly embarrassing, and gives me more sympathy for GH's view of the Democratic party. Some of the representatives at least seemed to know what they were talking about, but their policy ideas were basic band aid fixes which would do very little to address the big problems in our healthcare system.
I think they should focus on two talking points: add a public option to the ACA, and institute some form of price controls. The public option would address the lack of options in many rural states and the price controls would help with cost of care. These are relatively simple ideas that may resonate with the public, and combined with a stronger individual mandate and other fixes they could help pave the way for single payer some time down the road.
|
which people did they interview? the policy wonks who actually know what they're doing, or the politicians? I don't have a strong sense of who's an actual policy wonk of those names. and of course, few people want to actually listen to the policy wonks explain good policy, or else there'd be more of it talked about. mostly they want to listen to politicians for/against.
I can understand disliking the democratic party for lack of well thought out plans, but when he then goes to Sanders, who also doesn't have a well thought out plan, it doesn't make sense as an objection anymore.
|
Those Democrats are as centrist as the party gets. Take from that what you will.
|
United States43534 Posts
Healthcare is a hot potato where you get nothing but problems for doing anything. Provide healthcare and people don't want to pay. Take away healthcare and people don't want to die. Nationalize things and Ben Carson says that this is literally slavery. Ration things and Fox News says the death panels are coming for grandma.
I can absolutely see why the Democrats don't want to push big idea plans. The American people won't thank them for it. Ultimately the problem with politics has always been the electorate.
|
The pervading idea that a tax-based single payer system is undue theft by the government, that renders the entire country in service of the ill and the poor, is also to be thanked for it. People have been indoctrinated to swallow the idea that privatized health care is ok, that your right to live is something you should fight and pay for, because the idea that you might pay for something for anyone else is just wrong.
All those commercials you see for new pharmaceuticals are things I've seen all my life, it's a part of the landscape here. The idea that Big Pharma and the insurance companies throw millions of dollars around just to convince people to give them their money is something people are raised on at this point. It's really hard to question it when it's been there all your life, but I've looked around and spent a long time building my own awareness, and I quickly reached the conclusion that our current system is simply insane. It's ineffective, and it's backwards, it destroys more lives due to financial ruin than any public institution ever should.
|
On July 02 2017 05:55 KwarK wrote:
Healthcare is a hot potato where you get nothing but problems for doing anything. Provide healthcare and people don't want to pay. Take away healthcare and people don't want to die.
With that statement in mind, how can you advocate for universal healthcare? A very clear solution to this problem is to never get involved in the first place.
|
United States43534 Posts
On July 02 2017 07:35 Monochromatic wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2017 05:55 KwarK wrote:
Healthcare is a hot potato where you get nothing but problems for doing anything. Provide healthcare and people don't want to pay. Take away healthcare and people don't want to die. With that statement in mind, how can you advocate for universal healthcare? A very clear solution to this problem is to never get involved in the first place.
I'm not standing for election. I can advocate for whatever the fuck I like.
The solution for a self serving politician is to promise that everything people don't like about the current system will change, everything people do like will stay the same and then do nothing and blame the other side.
Universal healthcare has been proven over and over to be the best answer to providing healthcare to the population.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
