|
Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On May 14 2018 05:21 Dan HH wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2018 05:02 KwarK wrote:
Oddly enough the US government spends more per person on public healthcare (Medicare/Medicaid) than the British government does on the NHS. And Brits live longer. The US could afford to cover everyone with the NHS without raising an additional cent in taxes. That's assuming that the US would have similar expenses for supplies, drugs, staff, etc, which is far from a given. Especially if pharma/medical supply companies throw enough money on political campaigns.
That's the thing, a lot of our expenses come from the government not caring and pharma/healthcare providers being in the for profit business. Nobody is looking out for the ill when it comes to cost in the US.
|
On May 14 2018 04:07 Doodsmack wrote:
Gotta keep those Chinese companies who get hurt by tariffs in mind, and give them assistance if needed. That was part of the platform, right? Provide aid to any foreign companies hurt by the America First policy?
Especially when said company got fines for illegally selling parts to Iran and N Korea and who our own Pentagon says is using their phones to spy on us.
#MAGA must not mean what I thought it did. The mental gymnastics some conservatives are doing online to defend this is more proof that in their eyes Trump can do no wrong. The act becomes right and just when Trump does it, regardless of how it would be viewed if someone else did it. Lol just imagined it the 'globalist' Obama said this...
|
United States42283 Posts
On May 14 2018 05:18 Nyxisto wrote:
not odd, decentralised systems incur overhead. There's literally no point to funnel identical service provision through dozens of private insurers. It's an industry that does not add any value. For private US insurers bureaucracy makes up one-fifth of their costs IIRC. It's something like 3% for the NHS.
Insurers isn't even a component of the comparison though. If instead of paying for health insurance Americans just paid for digging a giant pit to burn money in you could still buy an entire NHS with just the gov healthcare money the US spends.
|
A big part of the cost saving from universal health care comes from regular medical checkups, not just going in when something feels terrible. Late-stage illnesses or issues cost a lot more to deal with than problems that are caught early .
That is true, but unfortunately it is impossible to create good, efficient healthcare with the logic that you can never test too much. If you run healthcare by market mechanism, there is a HUGE demand for regular and preemptive checks which serve no other purpose than to make people feel secure they don't have anything. This sounds fair enough, but in reality, it is a resource consuming monster that will suck money from insurance takers or taxpayers alike, and the effects in terms of improved health are barely measurable.
Patients are TERRIBLE at figuring out which tests need to be run and which not. And if you were a doctor which got more money the more tests you run, what would you do?
My whole family is doctors by the way.
|
On May 14 2018 05:41 Slydie wrote:Show nested quote +A big part of the cost saving from universal health care comes from regular medical checkups, not just going in when something feels terrible. Late-stage illnesses or issues cost a lot more to deal with than problems that are caught early . That is true, but unfortunately it is impossible to create good, efficient healthcare with the logic that you can never test too much. If you run healthcare by market mechanism, there is a HUGE demand for regular and preemptive checks which serve no other purpose than to make people feel secure they don't have anything. This sounds fair enough, but in reality, it is a resource consuming monster that will suck money from insurance takers or taxpayers alike, and the effects in terms of improved health are barely measurable. Patients are TERRIBLE at figuring out which tests need to be run and which not. And if you were a doctor which got more money the more tests you run, what would you do? My whole family is doctors by the way. You don't have to test forever. A regular checkup and more frequent checks if you have a significantly heightened risk factor is already a major boon and a small enough cost burden on insurers that it is worth the cost to reduce the chance of expensive late detected illnesses.
Which is why, over here, insurance companies offer them. In the end regular checkups save them money (obviously within reason).
|
One thing I've noticed about US medical care vs the many countries that do it more efficiently and equitably, outside of California your doctor will probably not ask you what you've been eating. Unironically what we're eating is one of the primary things killing us earlier than other countries and why it's cheaper to live longer there. A typical 70 yo American has to take a pile of expensive pills to manage all the damage they did up until then, plus the typical old body/mind stuff whereas a typical 70 yo Japanese person is simply dealing with a 70 yo body and the maintenance that comes with that.
|
On May 14 2018 06:11 GreenHorizons wrote:
One thing I've noticed about US medical care vs the many countries that do it more efficiently and equitably, outside of California your doctor will probably not ask you what you've been eating. Unironically what we're eating is one of the primary things killing us earlier than other countries and why it's cheaper to live longer there. A typical 70 yo American has to take a pile of expensive pills to manage all the damage they did up until then, plus the typical old body/mind stuff whereas a typical 70 yo Japanese person is simply dealing with a 70 yo body and the maintenance that comes with that.
Is that..not a thing? I literally can't even close the door to the doctors office before being asked what I've been eating. It's tied into so damn much (including psyche). I swear if I broke my ankle my doctor would tie it back to that strawberry cake I ate last week.
|
TLADT24920 Posts
On May 14 2018 06:21 Excludos wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2018 06:11 GreenHorizons wrote:
One thing I've noticed about US medical care vs the many countries that do it more efficiently and equitably, outside of California your doctor will probably not ask you what you've been eating. Unironically what we're eating is one of the primary things killing us earlier than other countries and why it's cheaper to live longer there. A typical 70 yo American has to take a pile of expensive pills to manage all the damage they did up until then, plus the typical old body/mind stuff whereas a typical 70 yo Japanese person is simply dealing with a 70 yo body and the maintenance that comes with that. Is that..not a thing? I literally can't even close the door to the doctors office before being asked what I've been eating. It's tied into so damn much (including psyche). I swear if I broke my ankle my doctor would tie it back to that strawberry cake I ate last week.
"So, it seems like you've been eating too much strawberry cake and this was a major factor for your broken ankle. Please cut down as much as possible. We'll assess your progress next visit" lol. That last line made me chuckle.
PS strawberry cake is the best!
|
5930 Posts
On May 14 2018 06:11 GreenHorizons wrote:
One thing I've noticed about US medical care vs the many countries that do it more efficiently and equitably, outside of California your doctor will probably not ask you what you've been eating. Unironically what we're eating is one of the primary things killing us earlier than other countries and why it's cheaper to live longer there. A typical 70 yo American has to take a pile of expensive pills to manage all the damage they did up until then, plus the typical old body/mind stuff whereas a typical 70 yo Japanese person is simply dealing with a 70 yo body and the maintenance that comes with that.
Well, you might have some trouble telling someone in Louisiana to lay off the creole.
Seriously though, I thought everything in the US tasted too sweet or salty. Even simple things like hamburger buns tasted way too sweet. I don't know if the plane trip caused my tastebuds to malfunction but that was my perception of food in the US. I couldn't finish a serve of red velvet cake that people go nuts about, I've never tasted anything so sweet in my life.
|
On May 14 2018 05:34 On_Slaught wrote:Especially when said company got fines for illegally selling parts to Iran and N Korea and who our own Pentagon says is using their phones to spy on us. #MAGA must not mean what I thought it did. The mental gymnastics some conservatives are doing online to defend this is more proof that in their eyes Trump can do no wrong. The act becomes right and just when Trump does it, regardless of how it would be viewed if someone else did it. Lol just imagined it the 'globalist' Obama said this...
I tried to find a thread about it on the_cesspool to see for myself, but gave up from the mind numbing stupidity I was seeing in the process.
On May 14 2018 07:28 Womwomwom wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2018 06:11 GreenHorizons wrote:
One thing I've noticed about US medical care vs the many countries that do it more efficiently and equitably, outside of California your doctor will probably not ask you what you've been eating. Unironically what we're eating is one of the primary things killing us earlier than other countries and why it's cheaper to live longer there. A typical 70 yo American has to take a pile of expensive pills to manage all the damage they did up until then, plus the typical old body/mind stuff whereas a typical 70 yo Japanese person is simply dealing with a 70 yo body and the maintenance that comes with that. Well, you might have some trouble telling someone in Louisiana to lay off the creole. Seriously though, I thought everything in the US tasted too sweet or salty. Even simple things like hamburger buns tasted way too sweet. I don't know if the plane trip caused my tastebuds to malfunction but that was my perception of food in the US. I couldn't finish a serve of red velvet cake that people go nuts about, I've never tasted anything so sweet in my life.
No, it's true. We add sugar and salt into pretty much everything.
|
Everything has sugar (or a substitute) in it. E V E R Y T H I N G, and usually inordinate amounts of sodium as well. The buns you ate were also probably banned where you're from due to the beaching agent used.
Our meat and our white breads contain added chemicals known to increase cardiovascular problems, which happens to be one of the top killers in the US along with other food and healthcare related deaths (medical errors is the third leading cause of death in the US).
|
On May 14 2018 05:47 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2018 05:41 Slydie wrote:A big part of the cost saving from universal health care comes from regular medical checkups, not just going in when something feels terrible. Late-stage illnesses or issues cost a lot more to deal with than problems that are caught early . That is true, but unfortunately it is impossible to create good, efficient healthcare with the logic that you can never test too much. If you run healthcare by market mechanism, there is a HUGE demand for regular and preemptive checks which serve no other purpose than to make people feel secure they don't have anything. This sounds fair enough, but in reality, it is a resource consuming monster that will suck money from insurance takers or taxpayers alike, and the effects in terms of improved health are barely measurable. Patients are TERRIBLE at figuring out which tests need to be run and which not. And if you were a doctor which got more money the more tests you run, what would you do? My whole family is doctors by the way. You don't have to test forever. A regular checkup and more frequent checks if you have a significantly heightened risk factor is already a major boon and a small enough cost burden on insurers that it is worth the cost to reduce the chance of expensive late detected illnesses. Which is why, over here, insurance companies offer them. In the end regular checkups save them money (obviously within reason).
Yes, you DO have to test forever, there is no set time to stop testing, there could always be something.
And you have far too much faith in insurance companies. Yes, they could probably prevent some occational expensive treatment from time to time, but first of all they would stay on top of your medical situation to make sure they jack up your price in time, or dump you as a customer if are found too unlikely to be profitable.
Public health care is an "insurance company too", as they also have to pay for expensive treatments, so your argument is not valid. I am offered free "checkups" by my employer, and I always refuse to do them. It is a waste of money IMO, and the results of the tests could ultimately be used against me. Our bodies are exceptional at knowing when something is not right, I do not need a doctor to tell me I am well.
For- profit businesses as the main public healthcare provider is never ever going to work. The most recent example I encountered was checkups during pregnancy. As the consequences of a misformed featus are so big, all women in the western world (as far as i know) get some scannings and checks done. However, there is almost no limit to how often some mothers would LIKE to have an ultra-sound, for no other reason than seeing that their baby is ok, and every country does this differently. The medical reasons for the many of those scans are non existant, however. You can't have a doctor selling scannings to nervous mothers and expect an effective use of resources.
|
On May 14 2018 07:43 GreenHorizons wrote:
Everything has sugar (or a substitute) in it. E V E R Y T H I N G, and usually inordinate amounts of sodium as well. The buns you ate were also probably banned where you're from due to the beaching agent used.
Our meat and our white breads contain added chemicals known to increase cardiovascular problems, which happens to be one of the top killers in the US along with other food and healthcare related deaths (medical errors is the third leading cause of death in the US).
I distinctly remember it being basically impossible to get any good bread when i was in the US about 15 years ago. Everything was very fluffy, and not stable enough. How are you supposed to butter your bread when you pierce it whenever you try.
However, i do not think that eating unhealthy stuff is a uniquely american thing. People are very good at eating unhealthy stuff as long as it is tasty. Maybe the US is worse in this regard though.
|
The US just doesn't have any kind of breadculture as we do in Germany, France or elsewhere here in Europe. I just wouldn't call most things you get in a supermarkt over there "bread". And while it's a general issue with sugar getting tossed into everything nowadays it's worse due to that
|
On May 14 2018 08:33 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2018 07:43 GreenHorizons wrote:
Everything has sugar (or a substitute) in it. E V E R Y T H I N G, and usually inordinate amounts of sodium as well. The buns you ate were also probably banned where you're from due to the beaching agent used.
Our meat and our white breads contain added chemicals known to increase cardiovascular problems, which happens to be one of the top killers in the US along with other food and healthcare related deaths (medical errors is the third leading cause of death in the US). I distinctly remember it being basically impossible to get any good bread when i was in the US about 15 years ago. Everything was very fluffy, and not stable enough. How are you supposed to butter your bread when you pierce it whenever you try. However, i do not think that eating unhealthy stuff is a uniquely american thing. People are very good at eating unhealthy stuff as long as it is tasty. Maybe the US is worse in this regard though.
it's possible to get good bread; but you do have to look a bit (and pay more of course); the variety in breads has also probably grown a bit over time.
the US is probably a bit worse then europe; also due to changes in habits over the years, and different shopping dynamics in general, people tend to cook a bit less.
|
On May 14 2018 08:33 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2018 07:43 GreenHorizons wrote:
Everything has sugar (or a substitute) in it. E V E R Y T H I N G, and usually inordinate amounts of sodium as well. The buns you ate were also probably banned where you're from due to the beaching agent used.
Our meat and our white breads contain added chemicals known to increase cardiovascular problems, which happens to be one of the top killers in the US along with other food and healthcare related deaths (medical errors is the third leading cause of death in the US). I distinctly remember it being basically impossible to get any good bread when i was in the US about 15 years ago. Everything was very fluffy, and not stable enough. How are you supposed to butter your bread when you pierce it whenever you try. However, i do not think that eating unhealthy stuff is a uniquely american thing. People are very good at eating unhealthy stuff as long as it is tasty. Maybe the US is worse in this regard though.
Well there's generally unhealthy, like enjoying cheese or red meat more than one should, and then there's eating things with poison added so that they appear more appealing or have longer shelf life or whatever.
The US blends both rather seamlessly plus lets corporations run manipulative adds targeting young children telling them to eat and develop wholly unhealthy relationships with their foods and characters associated with them. So that the mid show commercial about a snack triggers the same response every episode even if they are binge watching.
So we have trash food, trash advertising, and trash healthcare (for the price), and it's all incredibly profitable, but destructive as hell to humanity.
|
On May 14 2018 08:20 Slydie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2018 05:47 Gorsameth wrote:On May 14 2018 05:41 Slydie wrote:A big part of the cost saving from universal health care comes from regular medical checkups, not just going in when something feels terrible. Late-stage illnesses or issues cost a lot more to deal with than problems that are caught early . That is true, but unfortunately it is impossible to create good, efficient healthcare with the logic that you can never test too much. If you run healthcare by market mechanism, there is a HUGE demand for regular and preemptive checks which serve no other purpose than to make people feel secure they don't have anything. This sounds fair enough, but in reality, it is a resource consuming monster that will suck money from insurance takers or taxpayers alike, and the effects in terms of improved health are barely measurable. Patients are TERRIBLE at figuring out which tests need to be run and which not. And if you were a doctor which got more money the more tests you run, what would you do? My whole family is doctors by the way. You don't have to test forever. A regular checkup and more frequent checks if you have a significantly heightened risk factor is already a major boon and a small enough cost burden on insurers that it is worth the cost to reduce the chance of expensive late detected illnesses. Which is why, over here, insurance companies offer them. In the end regular checkups save them money (obviously within reason). Yes, you DO have to test forever, there is no set time to stop testing, there could always be something. And you have far too much faith in insurance companies. Yes, they could probably prevent some occational expensive treatment from time to time, but first of all they would stay on top of your medical situation to make sure they jack up your price in time, or dump you as a customer if are found too unlikely to be profitable. Ok, now I am confused.
You are aware that in a universal healthcare system an insurance company cannot dump you as a customer right?
They are required to accept anyone regardless of medical condition and cannot kick you out for being unprofitable.
Nor can they adjust premiums based on your expected health situation.
A fit 20y college student pays the exact same as a 40y old chain smoking alcoholic.
There is no using your medical history against you, no jacking up your price in time or dumping you if your unlikely to be profitable.
There are healthy people who pay premiums they never use and sick people who eat into their profits. That's why its in their best interest to spend a little money keeping you healthy.
The amount of testing they offer then becomes risk assessment where spending X on tests is cheaper against the expected chance you catch something costing Y.
|
Also, its not the job of an insurance company to pay whatever it itself deems necessary, there are laws for that.
An insurance company can pay more than what is required by law, but it most likely won't because this will jack up premiums when compared to others.
The main difference between insurance companies should be:
Time it takes/uses to check all the bills for general errors and checking if a treatment is viable/necessary when it comes to the expensive stuff.
|
Members of a special team at the Education Department that had been investigating widespread abuses by for-profit colleges have been marginalized, reassigned or instructed to focus on other matters, according to current and former employees.
The unwinding of the team has effectively killed investigations into possibly fraudulent activities at several large for-profit colleges where top hires of Betsy DeVos, the education secretary, had previously worked.
During the final months of the Obama administration, the team had expanded to include a dozen or so lawyers and investigators who were looking into advertising, recruitment practices and job placement claims at several institutions, including DeVry Education Group.
The investigation into DeVry ground to a halt early last year. Later, in the summer, Ms. DeVos named Julian Schmoke, a former dean at DeVry, as the team’s new supervisor.
Now only three employees work on the team, and their mission has been scaled back to focus on processing student loan forgiveness applications and looking at smaller compliance cases, said the current and former employees, including former members of the team, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they feared retaliation from the department.
source
And if you want exampe of textbook corruption, you get it there. Still struggling to understand how those people came to power and why they are still in charge.
|
I have a really hard time seeing the logic in the administration threatening sanctions against European companies selling stuff to Iran through a diplomatic agreement that included the US but which they decided to step out of, and the president claiming to work hard to help ZTE ,who pleaded guilty on violating sanctions from the US on Iran, with getting back in business.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
