|
And a market of healthcare and insurance providers has proven to drive those healthcare costs far higher than in countries where this is not the case. For both ethical and logistical reasons, a traditional market that neoliberals advocate for healthcare does not work. A healthy life should be a basic right afforded to everyone living in the United States. The profit motive in this market is fraught with perverse incentives and market signals do not function correctly when a product like healthcare is so vital and so expensive at the same time. If the entire healthcare sector isn't outright nationalized, a UHC system where the government is the either the sole buyer, or some other monopsony situation.
|
#
?
May 13, 2014 13:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 03:03 |
|
|
You don't need to nationalize the entire health system to open medicare for all. Just enroll everyone in medicare, say "Our budget goal is ~$4000 per person per year", and negotiate prices and covered procedures until you hit that number. Obviously cuts will need to be made, but just start with expensive treatments and work your way down.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2014 13:37
|
|
|
on the left posted:You don't need to nationalize the entire health system to open medicare for all. Just enroll everyone in medicare, say "Our budget goal is ~$4000 per person per year", and negotiate prices and covered procedures until you hit that number. Obviously cuts will need to be made, but just start with expensive treatments and work your way down.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2014 16:05
|
|
|
Nessus posted:I saw a handy dandy "how much the average household pays for X in taxes," and I saw the medicare entry was (for this household of about 50k in earnings) about $600. I imagine doubling that would be more than sufficient to pay for everyone, given that most people on Medicare now are old and sick and busted. In 2012, Medicare + Medicaid spending was about $1 trillion ($572bn + $421bn), which divided by 2012 population of 313 million is ~$3200. We already have the money and spend it on public health, we just need to spend it better. Ration care to those old, sick, and busted people so that the rest of society won't have to go into bankruptcy when they need their much less frequent/expensive care. Combine this with major cost reductions through negotiation and you are set. Other countries show us that this is 100% possible to do.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2014 16:28
|
|
|
on the left posted:Other countries show us that this is 100% possible to do. American exceptionalism is so ingrained our society that everything is a 'special circumstance.' Nevermind the fact that other countries pay less for more.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2014 18:06
|
|
|
Nessus posted:You didn't really get rid of the overtones I was talking about. First, I'm just going to share this chart from a famous study on the opinions of end-of-life care by physicians:  From here: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1365-2389.2003.51309.x/abstract Second, I'm going to say that we implicitly medicalize all poor states of health in our society (Foucault talks about this for all you leftists), and that instead of imposing responsibility on patients or asking them to examine their values, we tell them we can fix them (or will at least try). Patients are treated like children instead of being responsible for their own health and health choices. Why? Because it's easier and because there are less complaints. Change your life? No, have a SSRI. Stop eating so much and start exercising? No, have some statins and insulin. Face your own mortality? No, try every treatment, no matter how effective. You can debate whether or not this line of thinking is moral, but it is certainly not cost-effective. If we don't get the outcomes we want, and we spend tons of money on treatment, we are wasting money as society. Third, no I can't say that savings from healthcare will be spent on something socially useful, but I can say that it might be. It's ridiculous to claim that we must spend money on socially useless endeavors because the alternative is too hard to consider. Last, you ask about the brightline between diseases we should treat and diseases we shouldn't. This is not an easy question, and will require a societal discussion, and changes in cultural norms. But the reality is that we already have a brightline between spending money on healthcare and not spending other socially useful endeavors. We just never consciously made the choice.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2014 18:53
|
|
|
Slobjob Zizek posted:First, I'm just going to share this chart from a famous study on the opinions of end-of-life care by physicians: quote:You can debate whether or not this line of thinking is moral, but it is certainly not cost-effective. If we don't get the outcomes we want, and we spend tons of money on treatment, we are wasting money as society. quote:Third, no I can't say that savings from healthcare will be spent on something socially useful, but I can say that it might be. It's ridiculous to claim that we must spend money on socially useless endeavors because the alternative is too hard to consider. quote:Last, you ask about the brightline between diseases we should treat and diseases we shouldn't. This is not an easy question, and will require a societal discussion, and changes in cultural norms. But the reality is that we already have a brightline between spending money on healthcare and not spending other socially useful endeavors. We just never consciously made the choice. e: To editorialize a bit on that final graph, it seems to be reflecting being put in a persistent vegetative state by severe brain injury, like Terry Schaivo. You seem to be implicitly discussing the treatment of heart disease or cancer; could you perhaps post the graph where physicians were polled on what treatments they would like in the face of suffering a severe heart attack? Or was one not taken? There would seem to me to be a major difference between "in the face of something I know to be essentially unsurvivable, I would pursue palliative care, and perhaps we should encourage that as an option as well" and "we should actually just stop giving medical treatment to those who are undeserving, based upon obscure metrics." Nessus fucked around with this message at 19:07 on May 13, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 13, 2014 19:02
|
|
|
haha all you depressed people you don't need pills! You just need to change your life, for the better, while feeling totally awful about yourself and possibly suicidal. Sage advice there Kimosabe.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2014 19:06
|
|
|
rscott posted:haha all you depressed people you don't need pills! You just need to change your life, for the better, while feeling totally awful about yourself and possibly suicidal. Sage advice there Kimosabe.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2014 19:08
|
|
|
This was posted in the midterms thread:De Nomolos posted:I'll take the ACA over single payer if it means preventable diseases don't return. Basic scientific truth is a little more important than fighting over how left one can be. Thoughts?
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2014 21:15
|
|
|
AYC posted:This was posted in the midterms thread: Sounds reasonable.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2014 21:21
|
|
|
AYC posted:This was posted in the midterms thread: That's pretty much incoherent. The allowance for no contraception coverage with ACA-compliant plans has shown us that it's plenty easy to ignore scientific/medical fact with the ACA.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2014 21:47
|
|
|
Lyesh posted:That's pretty much incoherent. The allowance for no contraception coverage with ACA-compliant plans has shown us that it's plenty easy to ignore scientific/medical fact with the ACA. It's perfectly coherent. It's saying that leftist activities (such as single payer healthcare) are fundamentally flawed if their supporters are total nut bags (such as thinking vaccinations are evil).
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2014 22:17
|
|
|
It's a question of whether you buy that ACA is better at adhering to scientific truth than Single Payer would be. If you don't make the case for that first, the argument is a non-sequitur. I'm not caught up with the midterms thread, so maybe De Nomolos made that case successfully, and AYC just left that part out when bringing the discussion here?
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2014 22:32
|
|
|
Ditocoaf posted:It's a question of whether you buy that ACA is better at adhering to scientific truth than Single Payer would be. If you don't make the case for that first, the argument is a non-sequitur. It was a response to the following statement: quote:[The Green Party's] anti-science tendencies make me uncomfortable, but they enough positions I agree with to overlook that.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2014 22:35
|
|
|
computer parts posted:It was a response to the following statement: The context was pretty loving important in this case.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2014 22:35
|
|
|
Ah okay, I just looked into the thread for context while you were making that post. So this is about the Greens supporting good stuff except for being anti-vaccine. Yeah then, that's dumb. I guess I would still be glad if the Greens helped push Single Payer through, because I assume their anti-vaccine nuttery wouldn't have much effect on the final legislation, because they'd be only one small part of the push. Ditocoaf fucked around with this message at 22:42 on May 13, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 13, 2014 22:40
|
|
|
Except the ACA is what we loving have now, and diseases that were gone, are coming back anyways because of literal monstrous insane people.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2014 00:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 03:03 |
|
|
rscott posted:haha all you depressed people you don't need pills! You just need to change your life, for the better, while feeling totally awful about yourself and possibly suicidal. Sage advice there Kimosabe. Have a problem? Have you tried not having that problem? Truly, life is simple.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2014 17:53
|
|