On October 14 2013 08:34 FabledIntegral wrote: Completely different from what I see healthcare as, helping things beyond our control, such as a medical condition or freak accident.
Who is going to pay for health problems that were under our control and we had the ability to prevent it? Which actually makes up the majority of health problems people ordinarily encounter. They still have to be paid for.
The individual person. If they were under their control and failed to prevent, it's their loss, even if it results in financial ruin.
For example, if you don't buy property insurance for your house, and it burns down, you should be stuck at a loss. That is what the insurance is for. No one will be there to bail you out, even if it results in you being homeless.
This approach is actually costing you money already. Unless you are willing to deny emergency care completely to people who cannot pay, your system results in more expense for everyone compared to mandatory public "insurance". So is the notion of personal responsibility worth so much to you, that you are willing to pay more ?
To be fair, there is one other alternative: eliminate bankruptcy and bring back debtors' prisons. in fact the 13th Amendment still allows slavery for convicts.
On October 14 2013 08:34 FabledIntegral wrote: Completely different from what I see healthcare as, helping things beyond our control, such as a medical condition or freak accident.
Who is going to pay for health problems that were under our control and we had the ability to prevent it? Which actually makes up the majority of health problems people ordinarily encounter. They still have to be paid for.
The individual person. If they were under their control and failed to prevent, it's their loss, even if it results in financial ruin.
For example, if you don't buy property insurance for your house, and it burns down, you should be stuck at a loss. That is what the insurance is for. No one will be there to bail you out, even if it results in you being homeless.
This approach is actually costing you money already. Unless you are willing to deny emergency care completely to people who cannot pay, your system results in more expense for everyone compared to mandatory public "insurance". So is the notion of personal responsibility worth so much to you, that you are willing to pay more ?
How is this different from people not being able to afford the insurance or the deductible ?
On October 14 2013 08:34 FabledIntegral wrote: Completely different from what I see healthcare as, helping things beyond our control, such as a medical condition or freak accident.
Who is going to pay for health problems that were under our control and we had the ability to prevent it? Which actually makes up the majority of health problems people ordinarily encounter. They still have to be paid for.
The individual person. If they were under their control and failed to prevent, it's their loss, even if it results in financial ruin.
For example, if you don't buy property insurance for your house, and it burns down, you should be stuck at a loss. That is what the insurance is for. No one will be there to bail you out, even if it results in you being homeless.
This approach is actually costing you money already. Unless you are willing to deny emergency care completely to people who cannot pay, your system results in more expense for everyone compared to mandatory public "insurance". So is the notion of personal responsibility worth so much to you, that you are willing to pay more ?
To be fair, there is one other alternative: eliminate bankruptcy and bring back debtors' prisons. in fact the 13th Amendment still allows slavery for convicts.
On October 14 2013 08:34 FabledIntegral wrote: Completely different from what I see healthcare as, helping things beyond our control, such as a medical condition or freak accident.
Who is going to pay for health problems that were under our control and we had the ability to prevent it? Which actually makes up the majority of health problems people ordinarily encounter. They still have to be paid for.
The individual person. If they were under their control and failed to prevent, it's their loss, even if it results in financial ruin.
For example, if you don't buy property insurance for your house, and it burns down, you should be stuck at a loss. That is what the insurance is for. No one will be there to bail you out, even if it results in you being homeless.
This approach is actually costing you money already. Unless you are willing to deny emergency care completely to people who cannot pay, your system results in more expense for everyone compared to mandatory public "insurance". So is the notion of personal responsibility worth so much to you, that you are willing to pay more ?
How is this different from people not being able to afford the insurance or the deductible ?
If you are talking about ACA, then it is unclear if that is better or worse. But in standard public single payer system noone is unable to afford insurance as insurance is calculated based on your income and those that do not have income are subsidized by state/rest of the people.
Not sure if this was posted yet but apparently the GOP changed a rule in the House. I believe House Resolution 368 now prevents anyone except the Majority Leader from bringing up a resolution for voting.
Forget about what party you're in. Forget about the ACA/Obamacare. Isn't this pretty anti-Democracy? Theyre effectively taking power away from the majority and giving it to just a select few
On October 15 2013 12:04 Supamang wrote: Not sure if this was posted yet but apparently the GOP changed a rule in the House. I believe House Resolution 368 now prevents anyone except the Majority Leader from bringing up a resolution for voting.
Forget about what party you're in. Forget about the ACA/Obamacare. Isn't this pretty anti-Democracy? Theyre effectively taking power away from the majority and giving it to just a select few
Yeah, the past 4-5 pages lol
But yes. Yes it is anti-democratic... it's far more dictatorial.
On October 14 2013 08:34 FabledIntegral wrote: Completely different from what I see healthcare as, helping things beyond our control, such as a medical condition or freak accident.
Who is going to pay for health problems that were under our control and we had the ability to prevent it? Which actually makes up the majority of health problems people ordinarily encounter. They still have to be paid for.
Is this a trick question ? Maybe the person requiring the services should pay for them. Oh, wait. That's personal responsibility. We can't have that.
Open heart surgery that my parents couldn't possibly have afforded in the US saved my life when I was a child. In the US, they would have let me die, but my Canadian citizenship and the health insurance that comes with it saved my life.
Personal responsibility is great for most things, but healthcare has gotten so expensive that people die if you fuck around too much with a broken morality code taken from the middle ages.
Outside of that the problems with US healthcare is the A la carte pricing and the fact that alot of the industry in the US due to no import restrictions makes it so there are about 3-5 real medical suppliers depending on item; that ofc don't really want to compete with each other. Smaller businesses are near impossible to occur due to the heavy and necessary regulations on the medical industry part of it is the insurance blocks of hospitals vs insurance companies trying to negotiate.
Eh micronesia actually got to the relevant part that i was going to go on about which is the amount of ER patients and the fact that hospitals are legally obligated(as they should be imo) to not turn away people in critical condition. Then hospitals lose money on patents that don't have insurance and just show up to ER and incur bills they can't pay, it's just as dysfunctional.
I was not in critical condition as far as they knew. I had some problems, saw a bunch of doctors, my problem was narrowed down to my heart so I was referred to a cardiologist, at which point the government had paid thousands of dollars in consults and tests. Eventually my problem was figured out and the cardiologist thought it was potentially lethal, and a cardiothoracic took care of it. As it turns out, I was definitely going to die from it at some point.
If I had been brought to a US hospital as I was dying, I'm sure they would have helped out. But no, I was seemingly fine with minor symptoms, which happened to be symptoms of an important condition that could have otherwise been detected too late to be fixed.
It's harder to get tests in the US when the doctors, in my cases, felt like they were taking shots in the dark for a while. Anyway that's how my mother explains it to me.
On October 14 2013 08:34 FabledIntegral wrote: Completely different from what I see healthcare as, helping things beyond our control, such as a medical condition or freak accident.
Who is going to pay for health problems that were under our control and we had the ability to prevent it? Which actually makes up the majority of health problems people ordinarily encounter. They still have to be paid for.
Is this a trick question ? Maybe the person requiring the services should pay for them. Oh, wait. That's personal responsibility. We can't have that.
Open heart surgery that my parents couldn't possibly have afforded in the US saved my life when I was a child. In the US, they would have let me die, but my Canadian citizenship and the health insurance that comes with it saved my life.
Personal responsibility is great for most things, but healthcare has gotten so expensive that people die if you fuck around too much with a broken morality code taken from the middle ages.
If you read the quote, we are taking about situations you can prevent or at least budget for. Open heart surgery is not one of these scenarios, which is why it's not relevant to what was being discussed. Those *are* the incidences that insurance / healthcare would be good for.
On October 14 2013 08:34 FabledIntegral wrote: Completely different from what I see healthcare as, helping things beyond our control, such as a medical condition or freak accident.
Who is going to pay for health problems that were under our control and we had the ability to prevent it? Which actually makes up the majority of health problems people ordinarily encounter. They still have to be paid for.
The individual person. If they were under their control and failed to prevent, it's their loss, even if it results in financial ruin.
For example, if you don't buy property insurance for your house, and it burns down, you should be stuck at a loss. That is what the insurance is for. No one will be there to bail you out, even if it results in you being homeless.
This approach is actually costing you money already. Unless you are willing to deny emergency care completely to people who cannot pay, your system results in more expense for everyone compared to mandatory public "insurance". So is the notion of personal responsibility worth so much to you, that you are willing to pay more ?
As stated above and directly in the part you quoted from me, I was referring to things that are easily preventable, not "freak" incidences or emergencies. We were on the subject of birth control --> every day living expenses being mandatory covered in the plan.
Health care for all is a possibility, 99% of the worlds most dire health problems only lack an early diagnosis, if we were able to increase the ammount of effective doctors in and outside hospitals and allow everyone to be exposed to quality health care, we would save billions and billions of dollars in later care.
The financial gain is just too big to be ignored, its not time to be ideological, its a time to realize that you are throwing money down the drain for no purpose if you dont support health care for all.
There was a time in America when business owners, politicians, and just your everyday working man could do things for what they legitimately thought were the greater good. Morals mattered and while capitalism was good; it wasn't the be-all-end-all. Even though it was decades before my time, I like to think I'd have enjoyed living in that era. This is all just so ridiculous.
On October 15 2013 15:19 D10 wrote: Health care for all is a possibility, 99% of the worlds most dire health problems only lack an early diagnosis, if we were able to increase the ammount of effective doctors in and outside hospitals and allow everyone to be exposed to quality health care, we would save billions and billions of dollars in later care.
The financial gain is just too big to be ignored, its not time to be ideological, its a time to realize that you are throwing money down the drain for no purpose if you dont support health care for all.
This is highly, highly debatable in a developed nation where most of the truly cheap and easy solutions have already been implemented. And please note that I say this as someone who has benefited from my country's generous healthcare system and who fully supports it. However, I support it because I see it as morally right, not because I think it makes a profit.
The reason is really pretty simple, and it's the fact that even in a perfect healthcare system, everyone will one day get old and die, and the process of getting old and dying is extremely expensive. Saving someone at 25 does not free you from having to save them again at 60, and 70, and then pay for their death at 80.
Simply considering savings, the perspective where "preventative treatment X saved us paying for person Y to go to ER and die" isn't sufficient, because they will still die at some point. And when they do, they're probably going to need some ER time. So, you pay for that either way, you just pay for it when they're 80 instead of when they're 25, on top of whatever they needed in the first place. You also open yourself to a whole stack of other costs across their life and old age, like pensions and extended palliative care. It's terrifying, but allowing people to die, even in ER, is pretty cheap compared to keeping them alive.
If you're seriously trying to get a profit from healthcare, you need to get value back from the individual's extra years of life which is greater than what you put in. For some people - young, middle class, good job, short-term acute condition - this is quite achievable, but for a very large number this is absolutely not. The harsh truth is that lots and lots of sick people are just not profitable investments. This is especially true for the low socio-economic groups that the ACA makes a big deal of. Lots of people cost money when they're sick, maybe even cost money when they're healthy, cost money when they're old and ultimately still cost money when they die.
I want to be clear, again, that I'm not advocating against healthcare. I am incredibly glad my country has it. But as proponents, we need to be very careful that our case holds water. The argument that healthcare saves money in the long run is far from straightforward.
On October 14 2013 08:34 FabledIntegral wrote: Completely different from what I see healthcare as, helping things beyond our control, such as a medical condition or freak accident.
Who is going to pay for health problems that were under our control and we had the ability to prevent it? Which actually makes up the majority of health problems people ordinarily encounter. They still have to be paid for.
Is this a trick question ? Maybe the person requiring the services should pay for them. Oh, wait. That's personal responsibility. We can't have that.
Open heart surgery that my parents couldn't possibly have afforded in the US saved my life when I was a child. In the US, they would have let me die, but my Canadian citizenship and the health insurance that comes with it saved my life.
Personal responsibility is great for most things, but healthcare has gotten so expensive that people die if you fuck around too much with a broken morality code taken from the middle ages.
If you read the quote, we are taking about situations you can prevent or at least budget for. Open heart surgery is not one of these scenarios, which is why it's not relevant to what was being discussed. Those *are* the incidences that insurance / healthcare would be good for.
On October 14 2013 08:34 FabledIntegral wrote: Completely different from what I see healthcare as, helping things beyond our control, such as a medical condition or freak accident.
Who is going to pay for health problems that were under our control and we had the ability to prevent it? Which actually makes up the majority of health problems people ordinarily encounter. They still have to be paid for.
The individual person. If they were under their control and failed to prevent, it's their loss, even if it results in financial ruin.
For example, if you don't buy property insurance for your house, and it burns down, you should be stuck at a loss. That is what the insurance is for. No one will be there to bail you out, even if it results in you being homeless.
This approach is actually costing you money already. Unless you are willing to deny emergency care completely to people who cannot pay, your system results in more expense for everyone compared to mandatory public "insurance". So is the notion of personal responsibility worth so much to you, that you are willing to pay more ?
As stated above and directly in the part you quoted from me, I was referring to things that are easily preventable, not "freak" incidences or emergencies. We were on the subject of birth control --> every day living expenses being mandatory covered in the plan.
Those easily preventable things, if left alone, cause emergencies in the end. And if someone has to pay out of pocket, especially if it is big relative expense for him, he will ignore the symptoms to save money.
On October 15 2013 15:19 D10 wrote: Health care for all is a possibility, 99% of the worlds most dire health problems only lack an early diagnosis, if we were able to increase the ammount of effective doctors in and outside hospitals and allow everyone to be exposed to quality health care, we would save billions and billions of dollars in later care.
The financial gain is just too big to be ignored, its not time to be ideological, its a time to realize that you are throwing money down the drain for no purpose if you dont support health care for all.
This is highly, highly debatable in a developed nation where most of the truly cheap and easy solutions have already been implemented. And please note that I say this as someone who has benefited from my country's generous healthcare system and who fully supports it. However, I support it because I see it as morally right, not because I think it makes a profit.
The reason is really pretty simple, and it's the fact that even in a perfect healthcare system, everyone will one day get old and die, and the process of getting old and dying is extremely expensive. Saving someone at 25 does not free you from having to save them again at 60, and 70, and then pay for their death at 80.
Simply considering savings, the perspective where "preventative treatment X saved us paying for person Y to go to ER and die" isn't sufficient, because they will still die at some point. And when they do, they're probably going to need some ER time. So, you pay for that either way, you just pay for it when they're 80 instead of when they're 25, on top of whatever they needed in the first place. You also open yourself to a whole stack of other costs across their life and old age, like pensions and extended palliative care. It's terrifying, but allowing people to die, even in ER, is pretty cheap compared to keeping them alive.
If you're seriously trying to get a profit from healthcare, you need to get value back from the individual's extra years of life which is greater than what you put in. For some people - young, middle class, good job, short-term acute condition - this is quite achievable, but for a very large number this is absolutely not. The harsh truth is that lots and lots of sick people are just not profitable investments. This is especially true for the low socio-economic groups that the ACA makes a big deal of. Lots of people cost money when they're sick, maybe even cost money when they're healthy, cost money when they're old and ultimately still cost money when they die.
I want to be clear, again, that I'm not advocating against healthcare. I am incredibly glad my country has it. But as proponents, we need to be very careful that our case holds water. The argument that healthcare saves money in the long run is far from straightforward.
It might not be straightforward, but there is a lot of strong, if not completely direct, evidence. The fact that other nations reach healthcare parameters similar or better than US with less money is a fact. It might be explained by some special circumstances, but more likely explanation is that whatever the other countries are doing is just better and more efficient economically.
Also the fact that single payer system decouples health-insurance from employers. Employers do not have to care about health insurance and employees can pick employers based on more important (work-related) parameters rather than healthcare possibly saves a lot of money.
On October 15 2013 15:19 D10 wrote: Health care for all is a possibility, 99% of the worlds most dire health problems only lack an early diagnosis, if we were able to increase the ammount of effective doctors in and outside hospitals and allow everyone to be exposed to quality health care, we would save billions and billions of dollars in later care.
The financial gain is just too big to be ignored, its not time to be ideological, its a time to realize that you are throwing money down the drain for no purpose if you dont support health care for all.
This is highly, highly debatable in a developed nation where most of the truly cheap and easy solutions have already been implemented. And please note that I say this as someone who has benefited from my country's generous healthcare system and who fully supports it. However, I support it because I see it as morally right, not because I think it makes a profit.
The reason is really pretty simple, and it's the fact that even in a perfect healthcare system, everyone will one day get old and die, and the process of getting old and dying is extremely expensive. Saving someone at 25 does not free you from having to save them again at 60, and 70, and then pay for their death at 80.
Simply considering savings, the perspective where "preventative treatment X saved us paying for person Y to go to ER and die" isn't sufficient, because they will still die at some point. And when they do, they're probably going to need some ER time. So, you pay for that either way, you just pay for it when they're 80 instead of when they're 25, on top of whatever they needed in the first place. You also open yourself to a whole stack of other costs across their life and old age, like pensions and extended palliative care. It's terrifying, but allowing people to die, even in ER, is pretty cheap compared to keeping them alive.
If you're seriously trying to get a profit from healthcare, you need to get value back from the individual's extra years of life which is greater than what you put in. For some people - young, middle class, good job, short-term acute condition - this is quite achievable, but for a very large number this is absolutely not. The harsh truth is that lots and lots of sick people are just not profitable investments. This is especially true for the low socio-economic groups that the ACA makes a big deal of. Lots of people cost money when they're sick, maybe even cost money when they're healthy, cost money when they're old and ultimately still cost money when they die.
I want to be clear, again, that I'm not advocating against healthcare. I am incredibly glad my country has it. But as proponents, we need to be very careful that our case holds water. The argument that healthcare saves money in the long run is far from straightforward.
It might not be straightforward, but there is a lot of strong, if not completely direct, evidence. The fact that other nations reach healthcare parameters similar or better than US with less money is a fact. It might be explained by some special circumstances, but more likely explanation is that whatever the other countries are doing is just better and more efficient economically.
Also the fact that single payer system decouples health-insurance from employers. Employers do not have to care about health insurance and employees can pick employers based on more important (work-related) parameters rather than healthcare possibly saves a lot of money.
Exactly! I still can't wrap my head around this graph:
On October 15 2013 15:19 D10 wrote: Health care for all is a possibility, 99% of the worlds most dire health problems only lack an early diagnosis, if we were able to increase the ammount of effective doctors in and outside hospitals and allow everyone to be exposed to quality health care, we would save billions and billions of dollars in later care.
The financial gain is just too big to be ignored, its not time to be ideological, its a time to realize that you are throwing money down the drain for no purpose if you dont support health care for all.
This is highly, highly debatable in a developed nation where most of the truly cheap and easy solutions have already been implemented. And please note that I say this as someone who has benefited from my country's generous healthcare system and who fully supports it. However, I support it because I see it as morally right, not because I think it makes a profit.
The reason is really pretty simple, and it's the fact that even in a perfect healthcare system, everyone will one day get old and die, and the process of getting old and dying is extremely expensive. Saving someone at 25 does not free you from having to save them again at 60, and 70, and then pay for their death at 80.
Simply considering savings, the perspective where "preventative treatment X saved us paying for person Y to go to ER and die" isn't sufficient, because they will still die at some point. And when they do, they're probably going to need some ER time. So, you pay for that either way, you just pay for it when they're 80 instead of when they're 25, on top of whatever they needed in the first place. You also open yourself to a whole stack of other costs across their life and old age, like pensions and extended palliative care. It's terrifying, but allowing people to die, even in ER, is pretty cheap compared to keeping them alive.
If you're seriously trying to get a profit from healthcare, you need to get value back from the individual's extra years of life which is greater than what you put in. For some people - young, middle class, good job, short-term acute condition - this is quite achievable, but for a very large number this is absolutely not. The harsh truth is that lots and lots of sick people are just not profitable investments. This is especially true for the low socio-economic groups that the ACA makes a big deal of. Lots of people cost money when they're sick, maybe even cost money when they're healthy, cost money when they're old and ultimately still cost money when they die.
I want to be clear, again, that I'm not advocating against healthcare. I am incredibly glad my country has it. But as proponents, we need to be very careful that our case holds water. The argument that healthcare saves money in the long run is far from straightforward.
It might not be straightforward, but there is a lot of strong, if not completely direct, evidence. The fact that other nations reach healthcare parameters similar or better than US with less money is a fact. It might be explained by some special circumstances, but more likely explanation is that whatever the other countries are doing is just better and more efficient economically.
Also the fact that single payer system decouples health-insurance from employers. Employers do not have to care about health insurance and employees can pick employers based on more important (work-related) parameters rather than healthcare possibly saves a lot of money.
Exactly! I still can't wrap my head around this graph:
Something is very wrong with US healthcare.
That's what we Americans like to call "American Exceptionalism".
Anyway, what are the odds of the House rejecting the Senate compromise? I'm pretty sure the TP will reject it but will Boehner risk his speakership to bring it to the floor and depend on the Dems to pass it?
Part of the problem is that our own lawmakers screw things up constantly.
Look at Medicare Part D (a part of Medicare used for subsidizing prescription drugs), they passed a law that forbid negotiating over the price of drugs. The VA on the other hand is allowed to negotiate prices with drug makers, and pays between 40% and 58% less than Medicare Part D does.
Edit: About the shutdown itself:
GOP Rep Outlines Boehner's Counter Offer Rep. Charlie Dent (R-PA) on Tuesday outlined the proposal that House Republicans are likely to put forward to avert default and end the government shutdown.
Dent told MSNBC's Chuck Todd that, like the proposal being ironed out in the Senate, House Speaker John Boehner's (R-OH) initiative will fund the government until Jan. 15, 2014 and raise the debt limit until Feb. 7 or 8 of next year.
But unlike the Senate framework, the House would include a two-year delay of the medical device tax. Dent said that the House will also look to strike the so-called reinsurance tax under the Affordable Care Act and include a variation of Sen. David Vitter's (R-LA) amendment by requiring members of Congress and the White House to obtain coverage through Obamacare's health exchanges.
Dent said Boehner, who detailed the proposal during a closed-door meeting with House Republicans, will unveil the outline "as early as today."
On October 15 2013 15:19 D10 wrote: Health care for all is a possibility, 99% of the worlds most dire health problems only lack an early diagnosis, if we were able to increase the ammount of effective doctors in and outside hospitals and allow everyone to be exposed to quality health care, we would save billions and billions of dollars in later care.
The financial gain is just too big to be ignored, its not time to be ideological, its a time to realize that you are throwing money down the drain for no purpose if you dont support health care for all.
This is highly, highly debatable in a developed nation where most of the truly cheap and easy solutions have already been implemented. And please note that I say this as someone who has benefited from my country's generous healthcare system and who fully supports it. However, I support it because I see it as morally right, not because I think it makes a profit.
The reason is really pretty simple, and it's the fact that even in a perfect healthcare system, everyone will one day get old and die, and the process of getting old and dying is extremely expensive. Saving someone at 25 does not free you from having to save them again at 60, and 70, and then pay for their death at 80.
Simply considering savings, the perspective where "preventative treatment X saved us paying for person Y to go to ER and die" isn't sufficient, because they will still die at some point. And when they do, they're probably going to need some ER time. So, you pay for that either way, you just pay for it when they're 80 instead of when they're 25, on top of whatever they needed in the first place. You also open yourself to a whole stack of other costs across their life and old age, like pensions and extended palliative care. It's terrifying, but allowing people to die, even in ER, is pretty cheap compared to keeping them alive.
If you're seriously trying to get a profit from healthcare, you need to get value back from the individual's extra years of life which is greater than what you put in. For some people - young, middle class, good job, short-term acute condition - this is quite achievable, but for a very large number this is absolutely not. The harsh truth is that lots and lots of sick people are just not profitable investments. This is especially true for the low socio-economic groups that the ACA makes a big deal of. Lots of people cost money when they're sick, maybe even cost money when they're healthy, cost money when they're old and ultimately still cost money when they die.
I want to be clear, again, that I'm not advocating against healthcare. I am incredibly glad my country has it. But as proponents, we need to be very careful that our case holds water. The argument that healthcare saves money in the long run is far from straightforward.
It might not be straightforward, but there is a lot of strong, if not completely direct, evidence. The fact that other nations reach healthcare parameters similar or better than US with less money is a fact. It might be explained by some special circumstances, but more likely explanation is that whatever the other countries are doing is just better and more efficient economically.
Also the fact that single payer system decouples health-insurance from employers. Employers do not have to care about health insurance and employees can pick employers based on more important (work-related) parameters rather than healthcare possibly saves a lot of money.
Exactly! I still can't wrap my head around this graph:
Something is very wrong with US healthcare.
That's what we Americans like to call "American Exceptionalism".
Anyway, what are the odds of the House rejecting the Senate compromise? I'm pretty sure the TP will reject it but will Boehner risk his speakership to bring it to the floor and depend on the Dems to pass it?
Its no longer up to Boehner. Only the House Majority Leader can put a bill up for vote because of a law change on oct 1st
Its not a law change its a rule change. This is a very important distinction and I would very much like it if you would stop fear mongering about how the USA is now somehow a dictatorship, they can ignore the rule if they want to or use it if they do want to. Procedural change on who introduces bills is not something that makes america a dictatorship. Republicans still have to get elected in a year
If it ever became one it was when Andrew Jackson showed that you can ignore the other 2 branches (SCOTUS on the trail of tears congress on the national bank) when you control the military and the public opinion.
Back when "politics worked" they would have small continuing resolutions for a few days so that they could negotiate while the people didn't suffer. Democrats don't want the shutdown to be suspended because they think Americans suffering helps them more then it hurts them.
On October 15 2013 15:19 D10 wrote: Health care for all is a possibility, 99% of the worlds most dire health problems only lack an early diagnosis, if we were able to increase the ammount of effective doctors in and outside hospitals and allow everyone to be exposed to quality health care, we would save billions and billions of dollars in later care.
The financial gain is just too big to be ignored, its not time to be ideological, its a time to realize that you are throwing money down the drain for no purpose if you dont support health care for all.
This is highly, highly debatable in a developed nation where most of the truly cheap and easy solutions have already been implemented. And please note that I say this as someone who has benefited from my country's generous healthcare system and who fully supports it. However, I support it because I see it as morally right, not because I think it makes a profit.
The reason is really pretty simple, and it's the fact that even in a perfect healthcare system, everyone will one day get old and die, and the process of getting old and dying is extremely expensive. Saving someone at 25 does not free you from having to save them again at 60, and 70, and then pay for their death at 80.
Simply considering savings, the perspective where "preventative treatment X saved us paying for person Y to go to ER and die" isn't sufficient, because they will still die at some point. And when they do, they're probably going to need some ER time. So, you pay for that either way, you just pay for it when they're 80 instead of when they're 25, on top of whatever they needed in the first place. You also open yourself to a whole stack of other costs across their life and old age, like pensions and extended palliative care. It's terrifying, but allowing people to die, even in ER, is pretty cheap compared to keeping them alive.
If you're seriously trying to get a profit from healthcare, you need to get value back from the individual's extra years of life which is greater than what you put in. For some people - young, middle class, good job, short-term acute condition - this is quite achievable, but for a very large number this is absolutely not. The harsh truth is that lots and lots of sick people are just not profitable investments. This is especially true for the low socio-economic groups that the ACA makes a big deal of. Lots of people cost money when they're sick, maybe even cost money when they're healthy, cost money when they're old and ultimately still cost money when they die.
I want to be clear, again, that I'm not advocating against healthcare. I am incredibly glad my country has it. But as proponents, we need to be very careful that our case holds water. The argument that healthcare saves money in the long run is far from straightforward.
It might not be straightforward, but there is a lot of strong, if not completely direct, evidence. The fact that other nations reach healthcare parameters similar or better than US with less money is a fact. It might be explained by some special circumstances, but more likely explanation is that whatever the other countries are doing is just better and more efficient economically.
Also the fact that single payer system decouples health-insurance from employers. Employers do not have to care about health insurance and employees can pick employers based on more important (work-related) parameters rather than healthcare possibly saves a lot of money.
Exactly! I still can't wrap my head around this graph:
Something is very wrong with US healthcare.
Think about it this way: How could it be even more expensive? The (previous?) US system would have made sense if ER was denied to nonpayers - but no one wanted to carry the moral implications (for good reason!). It maximised usage of the ER simply because many have no other healthcare access. Obviously since these people have to be in mortal danger to be even looked at it´s also the most expensive point of treatment.
EPT
![[image loading]](http://ipatient.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/cost12.png)
