4 ms·

You appear to be reading rather a lot between the lines. I am not, and nothing in my comment suggested, that government involvement in health care is inherently

You appear to be reading rather a lot between the lines. I am not, and nothing in my comment suggested, that government involvement in health care is inherently bad. Nor was there any mention of conservatism, small government, etc. I merely pointed out that nationwide programs tend to go horribly wrong. Obamacare in particular failed before it was introduced since American health care is already cheap, and any good ideas it might have incorporated were destroyed by its secret process of creation and lack of feedback. Incidentally, defense workers are ideally positioned as experts on national health care schemes. We have seen exactly how large one-size-fits-all programs almost always destroy themselves.

JPKab 13y ago
American healthcare is already cheap? Compared to what industrialized nation? Every metric out there shows this to be wrong. Instead of talking the abstract "healthcare", instead talk about the cost of individual procedures. http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2013/07/high-cost-health-care-0 http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2013/07/hi... Regarding "one-size fits all programs destroying themselves", please explain to me how Obamacare is a one size fits all scheme? It's a conservative policy, designed by the Heritage Foundation think-tank on K Street in DC. (I have a buddy who works at the Heritage Foundation. They all loved Obamacare when Romney was implementing it, and were disappointed that it was only for a single state at the time. Suddenly when President Blackenstein was implementing it, it became evil and socialist. Frankly, Obamacare isn't the best solution. I would have much preferred a national, single payer system coupled with private providers, like the system in Canada. You know, the one that has vastly higher approval ratings among its patients than the one in the US. But no, the Republicans scared the old people into thinking they would lose their free, socialist medical care if people under 65 got in on the action, so we got stuck with insurance subsidies.
- Daniel_Newby 13y ago
  > American healthcare is already cheap? Yes, dirt cheap. As in we could abolish all payment plans and life expectancy would barely budge. Vaccines and generic antibiotics give you the lion's share of what is possible. Blood pressure and diabetes control gives you most of the rest. If you want to get extravagent, add trivial insurance for broken bones, treatable cancer, and the like. Obamacare is one size fits all because it tries to give everyone the same treatments. There is simply no way to give $400/month anxiety pills and $100k preventative cardic caths to every dirt farmer in Mississippi. Either the poor will get a heavily rationed version of Medicaid or the budgets will explode. I think the Massachusetts program is a pretty good idea. I have even considered moving there to get on the rolls. If it actually works in the long run, other states would naturally have adopted similar programs. The only reason to try a single national program is to pander to voters. One of the big problems in American health care is price manipulation. Obama could have become the first black Republican president by proposing that no Medicare provider may render services to anyone else except according to a uniform fee schedule. (If you think a Latino single mother is pissed off about a $300 aspirin, try talking to a country club Republican.)
  - JPKab 13y ago
    So, regarding the uniform fee schedule, what you mean is that any provider who accepts Medicare is required to have a uniform price list which is the same for all non-Medicare/Medicaid customers? As opposed to the nightmarish price variance given based on the clusterfuck of negotiated prices between consolidated provider organizations and insurance companies? I like that idea. It would have never, ever made it past the medical provider lobby. Did you see the Time magazine article "The Bitter Pill"? Fascinating, and the article actually provoked the CMS agency in the Federal Gov't to release their data on the "chargemaster" prices at various hospitals vs. the negotiated Medicare/Medicaid price (which is itself negotiated to ensure it covers a hospitals labor/materials for any given procedure).

JPKab 13y ago

American healthcare is already cheap? Compared to what industrialized nation? Every metric out there shows this to be wrong. Instead of talking the abstract "healthcare", instead talk about the cost of individual procedures. http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2013/07/high-cost-health-care-0 http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2013/07/hi... Regarding "one-size fits all programs destroying themselves", please explain to me how Obamacare is a one size fits all scheme? It's a conservative policy, designed by the Heritage Foundation think-tank on K Street in DC. (I have a buddy who works at the Heritage Foundation. They all loved Obamacare when Romney was implementing it, and were disappointed that it was only for a single state at the time. Suddenly when President Blackenstein was implementing it, it became evil and socialist. Frankly, Obamacare isn't the best solution. I would have much preferred a national, single payer system coupled with private providers, like the system in Canada. You know, the one that has vastly higher approval ratings among its patients than the one in the US. But no, the Republicans scared the old people into thinking they would lose their free, socialist medical care if people under 65 got in on the action, so we got stuck with insurance subsidies.

Daniel_Newby 13y ago
> American healthcare is already cheap? Yes, dirt cheap. As in we could abolish all payment plans and life expectancy would barely budge. Vaccines and generic antibiotics give you the lion's share of what is possible. Blood pressure and diabetes control gives you most of the rest. If you want to get extravagent, add trivial insurance for broken bones, treatable cancer, and the like. Obamacare is one size fits all because it tries to give everyone the same treatments. There is simply no way to give $400/month anxiety pills and $100k preventative cardic caths to every dirt farmer in Mississippi. Either the poor will get a heavily rationed version of Medicaid or the budgets will explode. I think the Massachusetts program is a pretty good idea. I have even considered moving there to get on the rolls. If it actually works in the long run, other states would naturally have adopted similar programs. The only reason to try a single national program is to pander to voters. One of the big problems in American health care is price manipulation. Obama could have become the first black Republican president by proposing that no Medicare provider may render services to anyone else except according to a uniform fee schedule. (If you think a Latino single mother is pissed off about a $300 aspirin, try talking to a country club Republican.)
- JPKab 13y ago
  So, regarding the uniform fee schedule, what you mean is that any provider who accepts Medicare is required to have a uniform price list which is the same for all non-Medicare/Medicaid customers? As opposed to the nightmarish price variance given based on the clusterfuck of negotiated prices between consolidated provider organizations and insurance companies? I like that idea. It would have never, ever made it past the medical provider lobby. Did you see the Time magazine article "The Bitter Pill"? Fascinating, and the article actually provoked the CMS agency in the Federal Gov't to release their data on the "chargemaster" prices at various hospitals vs. the negotiated Medicare/Medicaid price (which is itself negotiated to ensure it covers a hospitals labor/materials for any given procedure).