3 ms·

Uh, that would be the definition where you don't screw people out of tens of thousands of dollars when they're most vulnerable. I'm not sure why you're picking

Uh, that would be the definition where you don't screw people out of tens of thousands of dollars when they're most vulnerable. I'm not sure why you're picking out "Efficiency" in a health care system, and deliberately ignoring "Effective and valuable". While efficiency is commendable, you're missing the point of a health care system somewhat...

anamax 17y ago
> Uh, that would be the definition where you don't screw people out of tens of thousands of dollars when they're most vulnerable. Yes, it's much better to simply deny them care. As I pointed out the US has a tax-payer supported medical system with universal coverage. Most people opt out. In that, it's exactly like every other "free" system - anyone who can afford to go outside the "free" system does. Given that, why would you want to expand the scope of free? > I'm not sure why you're picking out "Efficiency" in a health care system, and deliberately ignoring "Effective and valuable". While efficiency is commendable, you're missing the point of a health care system somewhat... It's almost impossible to be effective without being somewhat efficient. We don't have infinite resources to spend on medical care and expanding public won't change that. What it will change is reduce efficiency, which leads to more total spending and/or less medical care. (It's likely to be both.) Which reminds me - "public option" advocates don't want to talk too much about "effective and valuable" as some of their key research support is based on lower cost per death, not cost per life. Unless, of course, the goal is effective deaths.
- anthonyb 17y ago
  > As I pointed out the US has a tax-payer supported medical system with universal coverage. Really? From what I know, the US has Medicaid (means-tested), Medicare (>65), and other ones like Veterans, but nothing that covers the bulk of the population. A lot of people are either uninsured, or underinsured, and so unable to get decent healthcare. I'm not in the US, so I'm not 100% on the various programs, but perhaps you can explain the discrepancy between your comment (US has universal health care) vs. the opening of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_the_United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_the_United_State... and http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Remarks-by-the-President-to-a-Joint-Session-of-Congress-on-Health-Care/ http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Remarks-by-the-Pr... Also from that article, the US seems to have one of the least efficient health care systems in the world, yet has poorer health care in real terms than other countries with public health (eg. most of Europe): "More money per person is spent on health care in the United States than in any other nation in the world,[6][7] and a greater percentage of total income in the nation is spent on health care in the U.S. than in any United Nations member state except for East Timor."
  - anamax 17y ago
    > From what I know, the US has Medicaid (means-tested), Medicare (>65), and other ones like Veterans, but nothing that covers the bulk of the population. "means tested" means "poor people are eligible". A huge fraction of the supposedly uninsured are eligible for Medicaid, Medicare, and/or other programs but don't bother to sign up until they seek care. In other words, they look like they're uninsured but they're not. In addition, everyone is eligible for free care at the local county or city medical center. They often try to send bills, but you're free to ignore them. That's the free program to which I referred. I mention it because most folks "forget it", concentrating only on the big federal programs. (It's a federal mandate but paid for by local govts.) What? Your sources didn't mention those things? Oops. (Do you always believe politicians or only the ones that say things consistent with your world view?) The US' health care problems come from lifestyle choices. Medical care can't address smoking or obesity, for example. (Yes, US doctors tell folks "don't smoke and lose weight".) Here's are some questions for you. Why do Canadian politicans come to the US for health care? (Often paid for by Canadian tax payers....) Do US politicans go out of the country for health care? If your favorite national health care system didn't provide a treatment that you needed, where would you go? As to the money - we have it. What would you have us spend it on instead? (It doesn't much matter to us if others couldn't afford it.) Also, there's no reason to believe that the US govt can do better. It already provides health care to a huge fraction of the population yet doesn't do so more efficiently. That said, I've always been willing to let the US govt experiment wrt health care for the folks it already covers. (Including govt employees, this is roughly half the US population.) Yes, free rein to try anything. All that I ask is that the per-person budget get cut by 5% per year for years 2-6. For some reason, govt healthcare advocates are unwilling to take this deal even though they claim that they can get 30% from the whole population.
    - anthonyb 17y ago
      If everything that you say above is true, then why is the US health care system so fucked? Huge amounts of spending, very little return, much poorer outcomes for most people than other countries, etc, etc. You're not making much sense, and I can't help but notice that you're not providing any sources for your opinions either. If you're not going to comment on the sources I've mentioned above, or provide some that support your opinions, then there's not much point in continuing the discussion.

anamax 17y ago

> Uh, that would be the definition where you don't screw people out of tens of thousands of dollars when they're most vulnerable. Yes, it's much better to simply deny them care. As I pointed out the US has a tax-payer supported medical system with universal coverage. Most people opt out. In that, it's exactly like every other "free" system - anyone who can afford to go outside the "free" system does. Given that, why would you want to expand the scope of free? > I'm not sure why you're picking out "Efficiency" in a health care system, and deliberately ignoring "Effective and valuable". While efficiency is commendable, you're missing the point of a health care system somewhat... It's almost impossible to be effective without being somewhat efficient. We don't have infinite resources to spend on medical care and expanding public won't change that. What it will change is reduce efficiency, which leads to more total spending and/or less medical care. (It's likely to be both.) Which reminds me - "public option" advocates don't want to talk too much about "effective and valuable" as some of their key research support is based on lower cost per death, not cost per life. Unless, of course, the goal is effective deaths.

anthonyb 17y ago
> As I pointed out the US has a tax-payer supported medical system with universal coverage. Really? From what I know, the US has Medicaid (means-tested), Medicare (>65), and other ones like Veterans, but nothing that covers the bulk of the population. A lot of people are either uninsured, or underinsured, and so unable to get decent healthcare. I'm not in the US, so I'm not 100% on the various programs, but perhaps you can explain the discrepancy between your comment (US has universal health care) vs. the opening of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_the_United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_the_United_State... and http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Remarks-by-the-President-to-a-Joint-Session-of-Congress-on-Health-Care/ http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Remarks-by-the-Pr... Also from that article, the US seems to have one of the least efficient health care systems in the world, yet has poorer health care in real terms than other countries with public health (eg. most of Europe): "More money per person is spent on health care in the United States than in any other nation in the world,[6][7] and a greater percentage of total income in the nation is spent on health care in the U.S. than in any United Nations member state except for East Timor."
- anamax 17y ago
  > From what I know, the US has Medicaid (means-tested), Medicare (>65), and other ones like Veterans, but nothing that covers the bulk of the population. "means tested" means "poor people are eligible". A huge fraction of the supposedly uninsured are eligible for Medicaid, Medicare, and/or other programs but don't bother to sign up until they seek care. In other words, they look like they're uninsured but they're not. In addition, everyone is eligible for free care at the local county or city medical center. They often try to send bills, but you're free to ignore them. That's the free program to which I referred. I mention it because most folks "forget it", concentrating only on the big federal programs. (It's a federal mandate but paid for by local govts.) What? Your sources didn't mention those things? Oops. (Do you always believe politicians or only the ones that say things consistent with your world view?) The US' health care problems come from lifestyle choices. Medical care can't address smoking or obesity, for example. (Yes, US doctors tell folks "don't smoke and lose weight".) Here's are some questions for you. Why do Canadian politicans come to the US for health care? (Often paid for by Canadian tax payers....) Do US politicans go out of the country for health care? If your favorite national health care system didn't provide a treatment that you needed, where would you go? As to the money - we have it. What would you have us spend it on instead? (It doesn't much matter to us if others couldn't afford it.) Also, there's no reason to believe that the US govt can do better. It already provides health care to a huge fraction of the population yet doesn't do so more efficiently. That said, I've always been willing to let the US govt experiment wrt health care for the folks it already covers. (Including govt employees, this is roughly half the US population.) Yes, free rein to try anything. All that I ask is that the per-person budget get cut by 5% per year for years 2-6. For some reason, govt healthcare advocates are unwilling to take this deal even though they claim that they can get 30% from the whole population.
  - anthonyb 17y ago
    If everything that you say above is true, then why is the US health care system so fucked? Huge amounts of spending, very little return, much poorer outcomes for most people than other countries, etc, etc. You're not making much sense, and I can't help but notice that you're not providing any sources for your opinions either. If you're not going to comment on the sources I've mentioned above, or provide some that support your opinions, then there's not much point in continuing the discussion.