8 ms·

Funny I thought the same thing. Or even an in house doctor for check ups and assistance.

by markatkinson 9y ago

coleca 9y ago
So it sounds like even NASA astronauts even have a crappy healthcare plan like the rest of us.
- astrodust 9y ago
  Many countries have universal healthcare, but the US has universally bad healthcare.
  - gozur88 9y ago
    I know you're making a joke, but what you're saying is not at all true. Most people in the US have quite good healthcare. That's why it's so hard to change anything.
    - joering2 9y ago
      Say what? I cannot find a single friend or family member who wouldn't be complaining at the healthcare; and those who are healthy just complain how high deductibles are in case they got sick. Have you ever been to Europe? Some west-block countries like Germany? Same wait time for private sector only at the 10% cost surgeries, xrays you name it, with the same equipment that USA is using in most cases.
      - astrodust 9y ago
        I've had relatives that have had quadruple bypass surgery here (Canada) and had to fill out more paperwork when applying for a library card than when checking out of the hospital. I've also had American relatives that could not, no matter how hard they tried, no matter how many times they called, begged and peaded with their insurance company, to get the treatment they desperately needed. It's like those companies would prefer to drag out the process until you're dead than pay out a nickel.
        WillReplyfFood 9y ago
        There should be a early death or inusry due to slow processing, a penalty payment..
        have_faith 9y ago
        Then the penalty cost will be weighed against the cost of covering a procedure. You can't cure lack of empathy.
      - banned1 9y ago
        He didn't say everybody. He said most people. It's impossible to give everybody awesome treatment, unless of course you want to pay for it.
        astrodust 9y ago
        It's not only possible, it's typically less expensive on a per-capita basis than what the US is doing now. The system isn't perfect here, some people fall through the cracks or live so far away from a doctor that they can't get the care they need, but anyone that's able to see a doctor or visit a hospital will get the same treatment as anyone else who can. I don't think you realize how much money is lost in the black hole of insurance paperwork and claims processing. People spend way too much time, doctors spend way too much time, and the hospitals spend way too much time. All of that goes away under single-payer, it simply vanishes.
        banned1 9y ago
        The quality of care must go down for some, right? It's not possible to a) keep the same existing standard of care for all, b) maintain prices, or c) keep the same level of profit for the industry. Something has to give. If [a] and [b] are true, then profits will be lower, and therefore quality will suffer next.
        lallysingh 9y ago
        I think the parent is taking about a third party, insurers who is taking money from a,b, and c.
        ACow_Adonis 9y ago
        Without debating around the edges (because yes,in practice there is almost always someone winning and someone losing), a market model only works if profit is a function of a sufficiently competitive market, and not other structural, cultural, or political factors and barriers working against that outcome. And your implied equivalency largely ignores those factors present in the US. Indeed, the theory that a competitive market can actually deliver socially efficient outcomes could almost be said to be predicated on the idea that yes, you can push down profits substantially without quality deteriorating, because market outcomes are not driven just by profit making motives on the producers' side, but also competitive and structural considerations that determine the nature of competition and consumer demand, competition, and substitutions in that market. So if the US healthcare system generally delivers worse outcomes and costs more (and that's something I generally take to be true), I think it would be a mistake to come at it from a simplistic point of view of an efficient market already operating and saying that any cut would worsen outcomes, because your opponents position is not predicated on the US health care system being a competitive market. Indeed, we need to take into consideration all the other structural qualities driving healthcare delivery and outcomes in the US market. And compared to most other countries, these differences are usually quite substantial: everything from your political process, to where and how health care is typically purchased and received, how your insurance market works, to your social security and labour laws. There is nothing, in even basic neoclassical economic theory, that implies a market is optimal, in either supply quantity or quality, by maximising producer profits or surplus.
      - toomanybeersies 9y ago
        Everyone complains about healthcare. It's a universal thing. In New Zealand, everyone complains about healthcare, even though hospital care is free and doctors visits are really cheap. Everyone in the UK complains about the NHS, people in Canada complain about wait times at hospitals.
        nindalf 9y ago
        > Everyone complains Anecdotal evidence is worthless. Perhaps you could contribute something more substantive than this because it leads the conversation in an unproductive direction - "oh I live in the UK and everyone I speak to loves the NHS"
        pjc50 9y ago
        .. but they also complain about it. Expressing affection by bickering is very British.
        dsfyu404ed 9y ago
        Except that everyone complaining is the closest thing politicians get to an an RFP.
        clappski 9y ago
        Everyone in the UK complains about the way the goverment run/fund the NHS, and the majority of the issues people have with the service are due to bad outsourcing choices or services affected by funding cuts. It's a big distinction.
        vertex-four 9y ago
        Yes, people complain, but in New Zealand and much of Europe you can get your healthcare eventually. Maybe not always to world-best standards (although more often than right-wing newspapers would like to suggest), but good enough. In the US, there are people who can't access healthcare at all - not because there's not enough providers, but simply because they don't have enough money. There's insurance plans that will cover very little unless you have a car crash, due to very high deductibles - much of America is on these.

Funny I thought the same thing. Or even an in house doctor for check ups and assistance.

coleca 9y ago

So it sounds like even NASA astronauts even have a crappy healthcare plan like the rest of us.

astrodust 9y ago
Many countries have universal healthcare, but the US has universally bad healthcare.
- gozur88 9y ago
  I know you're making a joke, but what you're saying is not at all true. Most people in the US have quite good healthcare. That's why it's so hard to change anything.
  - joering2 9y ago
    Say what? I cannot find a single friend or family member who wouldn't be complaining at the healthcare; and those who are healthy just complain how high deductibles are in case they got sick. Have you ever been to Europe? Some west-block countries like Germany? Same wait time for private sector only at the 10% cost surgeries, xrays you name it, with the same equipment that USA is using in most cases.
    - astrodust 9y ago
      I've had relatives that have had quadruple bypass surgery here (Canada) and had to fill out more paperwork when applying for a library card than when checking out of the hospital. I've also had American relatives that could not, no matter how hard they tried, no matter how many times they called, begged and peaded with their insurance company, to get the treatment they desperately needed. It's like those companies would prefer to drag out the process until you're dead than pay out a nickel.
      - WillReplyfFood 9y ago
        There should be a early death or inusry due to slow processing, a penalty payment..
        have_faith 9y ago
        Then the penalty cost will be weighed against the cost of covering a procedure. You can't cure lack of empathy.
    - banned1 9y ago
      He didn't say everybody. He said most people. It's impossible to give everybody awesome treatment, unless of course you want to pay for it.
      - astrodust 9y ago
        It's not only possible, it's typically less expensive on a per-capita basis than what the US is doing now. The system isn't perfect here, some people fall through the cracks or live so far away from a doctor that they can't get the care they need, but anyone that's able to see a doctor or visit a hospital will get the same treatment as anyone else who can. I don't think you realize how much money is lost in the black hole of insurance paperwork and claims processing. People spend way too much time, doctors spend way too much time, and the hospitals spend way too much time. All of that goes away under single-payer, it simply vanishes.
        banned1 9y ago
        The quality of care must go down for some, right? It's not possible to a) keep the same existing standard of care for all, b) maintain prices, or c) keep the same level of profit for the industry. Something has to give. If [a] and [b] are true, then profits will be lower, and therefore quality will suffer next.
        lallysingh 9y ago
        I think the parent is taking about a third party, insurers who is taking money from a,b, and c.
        ACow_Adonis 9y ago
        Without debating around the edges (because yes,in practice there is almost always someone winning and someone losing), a market model only works if profit is a function of a sufficiently competitive market, and not other structural, cultural, or political factors and barriers working against that outcome. And your implied equivalency largely ignores those factors present in the US. Indeed, the theory that a competitive market can actually deliver socially efficient outcomes could almost be said to be predicated on the idea that yes, you can push down profits substantially without quality deteriorating, because market outcomes are not driven just by profit making motives on the producers' side, but also competitive and structural considerations that determine the nature of competition and consumer demand, competition, and substitutions in that market. So if the US healthcare system generally delivers worse outcomes and costs more (and that's something I generally take to be true), I think it would be a mistake to come at it from a simplistic point of view of an efficient market already operating and saying that any cut would worsen outcomes, because your opponents position is not predicated on the US health care system being a competitive market. Indeed, we need to take into consideration all the other structural qualities driving healthcare delivery and outcomes in the US market. And compared to most other countries, these differences are usually quite substantial: everything from your political process, to where and how health care is typically purchased and received, how your insurance market works, to your social security and labour laws. There is nothing, in even basic neoclassical economic theory, that implies a market is optimal, in either supply quantity or quality, by maximising producer profits or surplus.
    - toomanybeersies 9y ago
      Everyone complains about healthcare. It's a universal thing. In New Zealand, everyone complains about healthcare, even though hospital care is free and doctors visits are really cheap. Everyone in the UK complains about the NHS, people in Canada complain about wait times at hospitals.
      - nindalf 9y ago
        > Everyone complains Anecdotal evidence is worthless. Perhaps you could contribute something more substantive than this because it leads the conversation in an unproductive direction - "oh I live in the UK and everyone I speak to loves the NHS"
        pjc50 9y ago
        .. but they also complain about it. Expressing affection by bickering is very British.
        dsfyu404ed 9y ago
        Except that everyone complaining is the closest thing politicians get to an an RFP.
      - clappski 9y ago
        Everyone in the UK complains about the way the goverment run/fund the NHS, and the majority of the issues people have with the service are due to bad outsourcing choices or services affected by funding cuts. It's a big distinction.
      - vertex-four 9y ago
        Yes, people complain, but in New Zealand and much of Europe you can get your healthcare eventually. Maybe not always to world-best standards (although more often than right-wing newspapers would like to suggest), but good enough. In the US, there are people who can't access healthcare at all - not because there's not enough providers, but simply because they don't have enough money. There's insurance plans that will cover very little unless you have a car crash, due to very high deductibles - much of America is on these.