4 ms·

I understand that there are limits and finite resources. If you're asking where to get the money from how about a little less on weapons development and a littl

I understand that there are limits and finite resources. If you're asking where to get the money from how about a little less on weapons development and a little more on medical research. "How much medical care should everybody get?" Well -any at all- would be a start for the millions without it. A lot of the questions you posed (who gets what and how much) have been answered in one way or another by the dozens of countries who already employ a universal health care system. We should be looking to them as a template and applying their to a new system. Sorry, but I get a bit heated about UHC. People tend to say things like "Where is the money going to come from?" or "The government is too incompetent to manage such a system" which are cop-outs, imo. "The question is, how much of a reduction in the quality of life in America are you willing to accept for an improvement in the average quality of health care?" I'm willing to give up a lot more of my money for health care than for weapons and war funding.

yummyfajitas 18y ago
>I understand that there are limits and finite resources. If you're asking where to get the money from how about a little less on weapons development and a little more on medical research. Sounds great. Only one problem: money is an illusion. The issue isn't money, it is supply of medical care as measured in units of doctor-hours. The only way you can get doctor-hours for person X is to take them from person Y. Doctors already work far more than full time and are unlikey to work more. Getting more doctors will be tough, since medical schools are all full. The issue is that medical care is a very scarce commodity. And you can't legislate scarcity away. Any proposed solution that doesn't create new doctor-hours (or find a substitute good for doctor-hours, such as nurse-hours) is a fraud.
- mlinsey 18y ago
  "The issue isn't money, it is supply of medical care as measured in units of doctor-hours" Except it isn't. The cost of the supplies necessary for treatment (drugs, medical equipment) is at least as big of an issue. Also, wages for doctors are trending downwards thanks to HMO's. I'm not saying that's an inherently bad thing, but it's definitely not what you would expect if doctor-hours were the scarcest resource in the system.
- rms 18y ago
  Doctors are kept artificially short in supply by the US medical school system. This is very, very fixable.
  - yummyfajitas 18y ago
    Technically it is medical schools that are kept in short supply. Most medical schools operated at full capacity, and about 2/3 of qualified applicants are turned away. This is certainly fixable, though the time horizon (medical school construction/expansion time + doctor training time = 10-15 years) is longer than most politicians like.
- aswanson 18y ago
  Sounds great. Only one problem: money is an illusion. The issue isn't money, it is supply of medical care as measured in units of doctor-hours That is wrong. What you are saying is that a doctors hours in 1940 are translatable to a doctors hours in 2008. This is obviously false; the limiting reagent is not the number of hours but the increase in effectiveness of those hours due to the 68 intervening years of medical research. A single doctor with today's knowledge and technology could have prevented the 1918 influenza epidemic, polio, the Black Plague, etc. So medical research completely matters.
anamax 18y ago
> "The government is too incompetent to manage such a system" which are cop-outs, imo. It's reality. Wishes aren't horses. UHC advocates claim that the US would spend 10% with UHC. Let's see what that would mean. The US spends about 15% of GDP on healthcare. Of that 15%, about half is spent by govt while the other half is private. Curiously enough, the govt covers about the same number of people as private spending. For argument's sake, let's say that the govt currently spends 7% of gdp on health care. If govt is only going to spend 10% to cover just the people who currently have health care, that means that it will only spend 3% to cover the folks that are currently in the private system. (Yes, I'm ignoring the uninsured, but they just make the numbers worse.) I'll repeat that - UHC folk are promising that the govt will cover the people it doesn't cover now for less than half what it pays to cover the people it covers today. If you want to argue that UNC can do health care for 10% of gdp, start by fixing govt health care so it only spends 5% of gdp to cover the people it covers today. You can kill private health care by simply opening up govt health care at cost if it's actually cheaper and better. However, as long as it isn't..... Until govt health care is actually cheaper than private, it's absurd to argue that it will be. Govt health care isn't cheaper or more effective than private in the US.

yummyfajitas 18y ago

>I understand that there are limits and finite resources. If you're asking where to get the money from how about a little less on weapons development and a little more on medical research. Sounds great. Only one problem: money is an illusion. The issue isn't money, it is supply of medical care as measured in units of doctor-hours. The only way you can get doctor-hours for person X is to take them from person Y. Doctors already work far more than full time and are unlikey to work more. Getting more doctors will be tough, since medical schools are all full. The issue is that medical care is a very scarce commodity. And you can't legislate scarcity away. Any proposed solution that doesn't create new doctor-hours (or find a substitute good for doctor-hours, such as nurse-hours) is a fraud.

mlinsey 18y ago
"The issue isn't money, it is supply of medical care as measured in units of doctor-hours" Except it isn't. The cost of the supplies necessary for treatment (drugs, medical equipment) is at least as big of an issue. Also, wages for doctors are trending downwards thanks to HMO's. I'm not saying that's an inherently bad thing, but it's definitely not what you would expect if doctor-hours were the scarcest resource in the system.
rms 18y ago
Doctors are kept artificially short in supply by the US medical school system. This is very, very fixable.
- yummyfajitas 18y ago
  Technically it is medical schools that are kept in short supply. Most medical schools operated at full capacity, and about 2/3 of qualified applicants are turned away. This is certainly fixable, though the time horizon (medical school construction/expansion time + doctor training time = 10-15 years) is longer than most politicians like.
aswanson 18y ago
Sounds great. Only one problem: money is an illusion. The issue isn't money, it is supply of medical care as measured in units of doctor-hours That is wrong. What you are saying is that a doctors hours in 1940 are translatable to a doctors hours in 2008. This is obviously false; the limiting reagent is not the number of hours but the increase in effectiveness of those hours due to the 68 intervening years of medical research. A single doctor with today's knowledge and technology could have prevented the 1918 influenza epidemic, polio, the Black Plague, etc. So medical research completely matters.

anamax 18y ago

> "The government is too incompetent to manage such a system" which are cop-outs, imo. It's reality. Wishes aren't horses. UHC advocates claim that the US would spend 10% with UHC. Let's see what that would mean. The US spends about 15% of GDP on healthcare. Of that 15%, about half is spent by govt while the other half is private. Curiously enough, the govt covers about the same number of people as private spending. For argument's sake, let's say that the govt currently spends 7% of gdp on health care. If govt is only going to spend 10% to cover just the people who currently have health care, that means that it will only spend 3% to cover the folks that are currently in the private system. (Yes, I'm ignoring the uninsured, but they just make the numbers worse.) I'll repeat that - UHC folk are promising that the govt will cover the people it doesn't cover now for less than half what it pays to cover the people it covers today. If you want to argue that UNC can do health care for 10% of gdp, start by fixing govt health care so it only spends 5% of gdp to cover the people it covers today. You can kill private health care by simply opening up govt health care at cost if it's actually cheaper and better. However, as long as it isn't..... Until govt health care is actually cheaper than private, it's absurd to argue that it will be. Govt health care isn't cheaper or more effective than private in the US.