5 ms·

Federal government literally spends over $1T on healthcare for the elderly. The healthcare issues in the country have never been about the old.

teekert 4y ago
Oh that’s good to hear, I got the impression it was only good as a veteran.
guerrilla 4y ago
What are you talking about, health care for the elderly is terrible! I guess you've never had to take care of an old person in the US? And never been exposed to northern European healthcare?
- feet 4y ago
  You bring up a good point, even though the US spends the most per capita on health care we actually have the worst outcomes https://www.pgpf.org/chart-archive/0252_health_outcomes_spending https://www.pgpf.org/chart-archive/0252_health_outcomes_spen...
  - kongolongo 4y ago
    Every time this stat is brought up I always think it doesn't convey the full context. Even though its in terms of per capita, it's still an absolute amount, I think a better data point to illustrate if the US was overspending compared to outcomes would be what % of disposable income is spent on healthcare vs outcomes. For example, let's say the US spent 2x on healthcare as some country, but had 4x the disposable income, would this still be overspending or would it be more efficient given the amount relative to income? The closest I can find is health spending as % of GDP but that doesn't capture what a person's income, since it includes government spending too, so it obfuscates whether or not the inefficiency (if any) lies in private or public healthcare in the US.
    - feet 4y ago
      Why would that even matter?
      - ipaddr 4y ago
        Things cost more in some places so you need to account for that variation. A million could pay for 3 / 4 doctors in the US or 30 / 40 in Africa.
        feet 4y ago
        You say this like the profit seeking in the US is some sort of natural phenomenon that we can't avoid. We can adjust costs based in cost of living and local currency, profiteering is what sucks resources out of the system Physicians in the US are protected, there's only a limited number of slots every year in med schools. This is fake scarcity
      - kongolongo 4y ago
        Let's say the US spent 2x on healthcare as some country, but had 4x the disposable income, would this still be overspending or would it be more efficient given the amount relative to income? Healthcare spending in $ per capita doesn't capture how much people earn in that country or how much of a burden it is relative to their income so its kinda meaningless without more context. It's like saying the US economy is better than 85% of the OECD because its in the top 5 gdp per capita.
        feet 4y ago
        "Disposable income" is undefined, its super vague and we can't determine anything with that phrase Most people in the US don't have "disposable income" from my perspective
        kongolongo 4y ago
        There's a very consistent definition for what that means with plenty of papers and institutions that use use roughly the same definition. Here's one phrasing of it by the OECD[1]. Basically it's just income minus taxes, what part of that is remotely vague? Discretionary income might be an even better measure but that has more wiggle room on defining what is a necessity and not. https://data.oecd.org/hha/household-disposable-income.htm https://data.oecd.org/hha/household-disposable-income.htm [1]
  - mensetmanusman 4y ago
    I bet sugar has a lot to do with it
- lazide 4y ago
  I think the issue isn’t the wilingness to spend. It’s the lack of willingness to make it effective.
  - feet 4y ago
    The reason its not effective is because most of the money doesn't actually do anything, that's literally what profit is Profiteering leeches resources from a system to benefit a small number of people at the expense of the rest of the healthcare system In my opinion, please excuse my language, but it's fucking insane
    - guerrilla 4y ago
      Unfortunately it's starting to happen here too. I'm not sure how much longer I'll be able to make these arguments at the rate we're privatizing and contracting out things... Might end up just as bad here in the long term.
      - feet 4y ago
        It's the whole reason for the UK tube strikes right now too, and the media is trying to paint the union guy as some Marxist villain when they just want decent wages The whole thing is totally absurd and short sighted, it's damaging to society. This is why there's more stability in some EU countries. We shouldn't be sacrificing stability for profits, that's a terrible idea. We need a stable populace to make stable progress and have a robust system that lasts for generations
    - lazide 4y ago
      In my experience, it’s often even worse - there often isn’t even any significant profit, at least not in any coherent, centralized way. There are a lot of individual players who can be pointed out, but none of them individually is ‘the problem’. Absolutely massive amounts of value is destroyed (and patients harmed) just doing super inefficient shitty processes because no one has the ability or incentive to do any better at a systemic level. Everyone in the system who has a degree of control gets paid very well keeping the wheels turning and consuming cash.
heavyset_go 4y ago
Medicare still has costs to the policyholder and it also requires supplemental insurance for coverage of things like eyes, teeth, hearing aids, long term care, etc.
birdyrooster 4y ago
They will just send you home to die when you become a burden to them. Happens all the time, old folks just get told to pound sand and die and no one does shit about it.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]

teekert 4y ago

Oh that’s good to hear, I got the impression it was only good as a veteran.

guerrilla 4y ago

What are you talking about, health care for the elderly is terrible! I guess you've never had to take care of an old person in the US? And never been exposed to northern European healthcare?

feet 4y ago
You bring up a good point, even though the US spends the most per capita on health care we actually have the worst outcomes https://www.pgpf.org/chart-archive/0252_health_outcomes_spending https://www.pgpf.org/chart-archive/0252_health_outcomes_spen...
- kongolongo 4y ago
  Every time this stat is brought up I always think it doesn't convey the full context. Even though its in terms of per capita, it's still an absolute amount, I think a better data point to illustrate if the US was overspending compared to outcomes would be what % of disposable income is spent on healthcare vs outcomes. For example, let's say the US spent 2x on healthcare as some country, but had 4x the disposable income, would this still be overspending or would it be more efficient given the amount relative to income? The closest I can find is health spending as % of GDP but that doesn't capture what a person's income, since it includes government spending too, so it obfuscates whether or not the inefficiency (if any) lies in private or public healthcare in the US.
  - feet 4y ago
    Why would that even matter?
    - ipaddr 4y ago
      Things cost more in some places so you need to account for that variation. A million could pay for 3 / 4 doctors in the US or 30 / 40 in Africa.
      - feet 4y ago
        You say this like the profit seeking in the US is some sort of natural phenomenon that we can't avoid. We can adjust costs based in cost of living and local currency, profiteering is what sucks resources out of the system Physicians in the US are protected, there's only a limited number of slots every year in med schools. This is fake scarcity
    - kongolongo 4y ago
      Let's say the US spent 2x on healthcare as some country, but had 4x the disposable income, would this still be overspending or would it be more efficient given the amount relative to income? Healthcare spending in $ per capita doesn't capture how much people earn in that country or how much of a burden it is relative to their income so its kinda meaningless without more context. It's like saying the US economy is better than 85% of the OECD because its in the top 5 gdp per capita.
      - feet 4y ago
        "Disposable income" is undefined, its super vague and we can't determine anything with that phrase Most people in the US don't have "disposable income" from my perspective
        kongolongo 4y ago
        There's a very consistent definition for what that means with plenty of papers and institutions that use use roughly the same definition. Here's one phrasing of it by the OECD[1]. Basically it's just income minus taxes, what part of that is remotely vague? Discretionary income might be an even better measure but that has more wiggle room on defining what is a necessity and not. https://data.oecd.org/hha/household-disposable-income.htm https://data.oecd.org/hha/household-disposable-income.htm [1]
- mensetmanusman 4y ago
  I bet sugar has a lot to do with it
lazide 4y ago
I think the issue isn’t the wilingness to spend. It’s the lack of willingness to make it effective.
- feet 4y ago
  The reason its not effective is because most of the money doesn't actually do anything, that's literally what profit is Profiteering leeches resources from a system to benefit a small number of people at the expense of the rest of the healthcare system In my opinion, please excuse my language, but it's fucking insane
  - guerrilla 4y ago
    Unfortunately it's starting to happen here too. I'm not sure how much longer I'll be able to make these arguments at the rate we're privatizing and contracting out things... Might end up just as bad here in the long term.
    - feet 4y ago
      It's the whole reason for the UK tube strikes right now too, and the media is trying to paint the union guy as some Marxist villain when they just want decent wages The whole thing is totally absurd and short sighted, it's damaging to society. This is why there's more stability in some EU countries. We shouldn't be sacrificing stability for profits, that's a terrible idea. We need a stable populace to make stable progress and have a robust system that lasts for generations
  - lazide 4y ago
    In my experience, it’s often even worse - there often isn’t even any significant profit, at least not in any coherent, centralized way. There are a lot of individual players who can be pointed out, but none of them individually is ‘the problem’. Absolutely massive amounts of value is destroyed (and patients harmed) just doing super inefficient shitty processes because no one has the ability or incentive to do any better at a systemic level. Everyone in the system who has a degree of control gets paid very well keeping the wheels turning and consuming cash.

heavyset_go 4y ago

Medicare still has costs to the policyholder and it also requires supplemental insurance for coverage of things like eyes, teeth, hearing aids, long term care, etc.

birdyrooster 4y ago

They will just send you home to die when you become a burden to them. Happens all the time, old folks just get told to pound sand and die and no one does shit about it.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]