6 ms·

Literally every other industrialized country has a Medicare For All type system and somehow the hospitals manage to stay open. And you can’t mention a tax incr

Literally every other industrialized country has a Medicare For All type system and somehow the hospitals manage to stay open. And you can’t mention a tax increase without mentioning the savings of not having to pay for private insurance.

zeroname 8y ago
I am talking about actual Medicare, which causes big losses for hospitals. Those need to be covered, that is my point. You can not just import other nations healthcare systems. Those are cheaper because the doctors and nurses earn less and the service is worse.
- abalone 8y ago
  You don’t cite any evidence to support your claim. Most U.S. doctors graduate with >$100K in medical education debt. Other countries have better health outcomes, so that pretty much kills your “worse service” claim. Rob Delaney is a great example of an American who experienced both US and U.K. systems in depth. Look him up.
  - zeroname 8y ago
    > You don’t cite any evidence to support your claim. Most U.S. doctors graduate with >$100K in medical education debt. You posted a source yourself: https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2018/03/u-s-pays-more-for-health-care-with-worse-population-health-outcomes/ https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2018/03/u-s-pays-more... Salaries are almost twice as high. Those other countries also tend to have higher taxes and other salary deductions, so doctors earn less. > Other countries have better health outcomes, so that pretty much kills your “worse service” claim. No it doesn't. Not every US citizen actually receives the service, because they want to (or have to) save money, kicking the problem down the road, exacerbating the issue. Americans also tend to be more obese. You call the "cancer survival" rate a cherry pick, but it's actually a good indicator how good the actual treatment is and how timely it is administered. > Rob Delaney is a great example... One guy's opinion isn't "evidence" either. I could give you individual health care horror stories from single payer countries, but that would be emotional manipulation.
    - DanBC 8y ago
      Everyone knows that 5 year cancer survival rates in the US are high because the US over-tests so much. This is evidence that harm is being caused. It's not evidence of a good health care system. Why are male incontinence products so prevalent in the states? It's because men are pushed to get PSA and similar screening for prostate cancer. This means the US detects a lot of slow growing cancer that's unlikely to kill someone (which improves the 5 year survival stats), but it also means that the US then provides treatment to those men. That treatment has side effects.
      - Sir_Vival 8y ago
        It doesn't seem like "over testing" or "harm" if the end result is less people dying. The fact of the matter is that I was able to get an MRI the same day I went to the doctor with an issue twice in the US. One of those times was for severe recurrent headaches. The doctor didn't think it was a tumor (and it wasn't), but he did it to be sure. If I were in Canada chances are I would have waited months for that appointment. In the worst case that would mean the tumor had time to grow. In the best case that's months of unnecessary worry, which isn't healthy in itself.
        icebraining 8y ago
        If you were in Canada you could get that MRI privately and still probably save quite a bit of money.
        DanBC 8y ago
        > if the end result is less people dying That isn't the end result.
      - deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
    - abalone 8y ago
      > > Other countries have better health outcomes, so that pretty much kills your “worse service” claim. > No it doesn't. Not every US citizen actually receives the service, because they want to (or have to) save money So by “better” service you mean no service for the poor. That’s better? This is how you spin a system with worse health outcomes into something “better” — again, without citing a shred of evidence.
- rscho 8y ago
  Switzerland...
  - zeroname 8y ago
    ...is a total outlier country in every respect. It also has a vastly higher cost of living. Nominal salaries are not comparable with the US. Still, they're better than in other European countries, so their doctors (and many other professionals) flock to Switzerland (after having taken all their "free" training in their home countries). By the way, health insurance in Switzerland is entirely private, but its affluent citizens are forced to buy insurance by law.
- DanBC 8y ago
  > the service is worse. You keep saying this but you've never provided any evidence, and it's clear the US care is worse across a range of indicators. Some people say the US system works best for the rich and healthy, but even they suffer because of the weird amount of over-testing and over-diagnosis that happens.
sadris 8y ago
literally every other country has "death panels" in which they deny care based on cost/benefit ratio. In America, everyone gets every treatment; we have the best cancer survival rates, but we pay for it. 90% of all health Care spending is spent on people within the last two years of their life: because in America we try to keep people alive for as long as possible. They have different goals in Europe. There's a reason private health insurance is big on Germany: because they don't have guaranteed coverage for everyone and everything at all ages.
- zeroname 8y ago
  Different goals indeed: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/news/6127514/Sentenced-to-death-on-the-NHS.html https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/news/6127514/Sentenc...
- abalone 8y ago
  > literally every other country has "death panels" Source? This term was invented by Sarah Palin and was judged 2009’s Lie of the Year by PolitiFact.[1] > In America, everyone gets every treatment You have no idea what you’re taking about. There are 28 million uninsured Americans and millions more who are unable to afford treatment due to high deductibles.[2] You cherry-picked one statistic, but overall the U.S. has worse health outcomes vs other high income countries while spending 2X as much.[3] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_panel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_panel [2] https://www.cnbc.com/2018/09/12/rates-of-uninsured-in-us-hold-steady-at-historic-low-8point8-percent.html https://www.cnbc.com/2018/09/12/rates-of-uninsured-in-us-hol... [3] https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2018/03/u-s-pays-more-for-health-care-with-worse-population-health-outcomes/ https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2018/03/u-s-pays-more...
  - burfog 8y ago
    PolitiFact is partisan, so it must be disregarded. When pondering death panels, it helps to start with a bit of William Shakespeare: What's in a name? That which we call a rose By any other word would smell as sweet No law would literally use the term "death panel". The name doesn't matter. Also, treatment delayed is treatment denied. If we promise the world, but we decide that we will only fund enough treatment for X patients per year, then treatment is getting denied if there are more than X patients per year. We might never say "NO" to anybody, but not everybody makes it to the front of the waiting list. Some die while waiting. It isn't reasonable to simply assume that the USA wouldn't have problems found in the UK. The UK does in fact deny treatment. Worse yet, they have a history of giving up and then using the legal system to block people from attempting to get care in other countries.

zeroname 8y ago

I am talking about actual Medicare, which causes big losses for hospitals. Those need to be covered, that is my point. You can not just import other nations healthcare systems. Those are cheaper because the doctors and nurses earn less and the service is worse.

abalone 8y ago
You don’t cite any evidence to support your claim. Most U.S. doctors graduate with >$100K in medical education debt. Other countries have better health outcomes, so that pretty much kills your “worse service” claim. Rob Delaney is a great example of an American who experienced both US and U.K. systems in depth. Look him up.
- zeroname 8y ago
  > You don’t cite any evidence to support your claim. Most U.S. doctors graduate with >$100K in medical education debt. You posted a source yourself: https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2018/03/u-s-pays-more-for-health-care-with-worse-population-health-outcomes/ https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2018/03/u-s-pays-more... Salaries are almost twice as high. Those other countries also tend to have higher taxes and other salary deductions, so doctors earn less. > Other countries have better health outcomes, so that pretty much kills your “worse service” claim. No it doesn't. Not every US citizen actually receives the service, because they want to (or have to) save money, kicking the problem down the road, exacerbating the issue. Americans also tend to be more obese. You call the "cancer survival" rate a cherry pick, but it's actually a good indicator how good the actual treatment is and how timely it is administered. > Rob Delaney is a great example... One guy's opinion isn't "evidence" either. I could give you individual health care horror stories from single payer countries, but that would be emotional manipulation.
  - DanBC 8y ago
    Everyone knows that 5 year cancer survival rates in the US are high because the US over-tests so much. This is evidence that harm is being caused. It's not evidence of a good health care system. Why are male incontinence products so prevalent in the states? It's because men are pushed to get PSA and similar screening for prostate cancer. This means the US detects a lot of slow growing cancer that's unlikely to kill someone (which improves the 5 year survival stats), but it also means that the US then provides treatment to those men. That treatment has side effects.
    - Sir_Vival 8y ago
      It doesn't seem like "over testing" or "harm" if the end result is less people dying. The fact of the matter is that I was able to get an MRI the same day I went to the doctor with an issue twice in the US. One of those times was for severe recurrent headaches. The doctor didn't think it was a tumor (and it wasn't), but he did it to be sure. If I were in Canada chances are I would have waited months for that appointment. In the worst case that would mean the tumor had time to grow. In the best case that's months of unnecessary worry, which isn't healthy in itself.
      - icebraining 8y ago
        If you were in Canada you could get that MRI privately and still probably save quite a bit of money.
      - DanBC 8y ago
        > if the end result is less people dying That isn't the end result.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
  - abalone 8y ago
    > > Other countries have better health outcomes, so that pretty much kills your “worse service” claim. > No it doesn't. Not every US citizen actually receives the service, because they want to (or have to) save money So by “better” service you mean no service for the poor. That’s better? This is how you spin a system with worse health outcomes into something “better” — again, without citing a shred of evidence.
rscho 8y ago
Switzerland...
- zeroname 8y ago
  ...is a total outlier country in every respect. It also has a vastly higher cost of living. Nominal salaries are not comparable with the US. Still, they're better than in other European countries, so their doctors (and many other professionals) flock to Switzerland (after having taken all their "free" training in their home countries). By the way, health insurance in Switzerland is entirely private, but its affluent citizens are forced to buy insurance by law.
DanBC 8y ago
> the service is worse. You keep saying this but you've never provided any evidence, and it's clear the US care is worse across a range of indicators. Some people say the US system works best for the rich and healthy, but even they suffer because of the weird amount of over-testing and over-diagnosis that happens.

sadris 8y ago

literally every other country has "death panels" in which they deny care based on cost/benefit ratio. In America, everyone gets every treatment; we have the best cancer survival rates, but we pay for it. 90% of all health Care spending is spent on people within the last two years of their life: because in America we try to keep people alive for as long as possible. They have different goals in Europe. There's a reason private health insurance is big on Germany: because they don't have guaranteed coverage for everyone and everything at all ages.

zeroname 8y ago
Different goals indeed: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/news/6127514/Sentenced-to-death-on-the-NHS.html https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/news/6127514/Sentenc...
abalone 8y ago
> literally every other country has "death panels" Source? This term was invented by Sarah Palin and was judged 2009’s Lie of the Year by PolitiFact.[1] > In America, everyone gets every treatment You have no idea what you’re taking about. There are 28 million uninsured Americans and millions more who are unable to afford treatment due to high deductibles.[2] You cherry-picked one statistic, but overall the U.S. has worse health outcomes vs other high income countries while spending 2X as much.[3] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_panel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_panel [2] https://www.cnbc.com/2018/09/12/rates-of-uninsured-in-us-hold-steady-at-historic-low-8point8-percent.html https://www.cnbc.com/2018/09/12/rates-of-uninsured-in-us-hol... [3] https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2018/03/u-s-pays-more-for-health-care-with-worse-population-health-outcomes/ https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2018/03/u-s-pays-more...
- burfog 8y ago
  PolitiFact is partisan, so it must be disregarded. When pondering death panels, it helps to start with a bit of William Shakespeare: What's in a name? That which we call a rose By any other word would smell as sweet No law would literally use the term "death panel". The name doesn't matter. Also, treatment delayed is treatment denied. If we promise the world, but we decide that we will only fund enough treatment for X patients per year, then treatment is getting denied if there are more than X patients per year. We might never say "NO" to anybody, but not everybody makes it to the front of the waiting list. Some die while waiting. It isn't reasonable to simply assume that the USA wouldn't have problems found in the UK. The UK does in fact deny treatment. Worse yet, they have a history of giving up and then using the legal system to block people from attempting to get care in other countries.