- Joined
- Aug 10, 2010
- Messages
- 156
- Reaction score
- 71
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Liberal
* Running scare ads to trick people into thinking Obama wants to put their gramma away
* Overpaid CEOs and other execs
* Dividend Payouts
* Super Big Profit Margins
Our relatively privatized healthcare system is inferior to those of other large industrial nations. So the idea that our system can be solved making it even more free market-oriented is demonstrably false.
See Also:
The argument that UHC inherently improves the life expectancy is pretty much a bunk argument that can be easily disproven.
Take a look at life expectancy in 1965 when Medicare was approved.
Then go forward 5 years, life expectancy for men improved .3 years, for women 1 year.
Can anyone tell me if this was because of Medicare or because it was naturally improving anyway.
I think we know the answer.
The argument that UHC inherently improves the life expectancy is pretty much a bunk argument that can be easily disproven.
Take a look at life expectancy in 1965 when Medicare was approved.
Then go forward 5 years, life expectancy for men improved .3 years, for women 1 year.
Can anyone tell me if this was because of Medicare or because it was naturally improving anyway.
I think we know the answer.
The problem is that the United States doesn't have anything close to a free market healthcare system. In our system, due to tax breaks, employers cover most insurance plans. Because of this, there is little incentive among customers or insurers to watch their costs or shop around for the best price. This leads to overuse and negligent use of the system that drives up the price.
Those two things alone tell me your entire well planned posted is false.
Profit margins for insurance companies are slim and only a few pay dividends.
You also included the life expectancy argument which is invalid on it's face.
To many other things, besides medical care, are involved with that.
And yet virtually all the data can extrapolate shows that the "less free" healthcare industries of other large advanced countries outperform ours.
And yet virtually all the data can extrapolate shows that the "less free" healthcare industries of other large advanced countries outperform ours. Hence, you're on shaky ground arguing that we need a "freer" system.
And in fact, the tax breaks companies get make it cheaper for them to provide employees with coverage. Take away those tax breaks and health insurance becomes more, not less expensive for individuals.
And yet virtually all the data can extrapolate shows that the "less free" healthcare industries of other large advanced countries outperform ours. Hence, you're on shaky ground arguing that we need a "freer" system.
And in fact, the tax breaks companies get make it cheaper for them to provide employees with coverage. Take away those tax breaks and health insurance becomes more, not less expensive for individuals.
I see, so if someone in the US lives long enough to be on Medicare, their life expectancy increases. YAY for public plans!
I'll admit I was being a being over the top calling the margins "super big." But either way, they account for a cost that's passed on to the consumer that's not present in a public system. As for divident payouts; it doesn't matter if only a few insurance companies pay them; it's a few who largely account for most coverage for Americans.
I see, so if someone in the US lives long enough to be on Medicare, their life expectancy increases. YAY for public plans!
How is that what you got out of those graphs and articles?
The point is that the US has a much higher mortality rate during life for various non-health related reasons, which artificially lowers our life expectancy. That directly contradicts your claim.
His point is, if someone is 70, or 75, or 80, they are on a socialized insurance plan. Those under 70 have a higher mortality rate in the us, which is why the mean life expectency is skewed, however those people are less likely to be on a socialized insurance plan, except maybe medicaid.
I am not sure were to find it, but it would be interesting to look at the median life expectancy, since it is more resistant to such outliers. However, none of these measures will tell us why the life expectancy is what it is.
The vast majority of the advances in life expectancy have to do with adequate nutrition.
We're super on that end.
Other things involved work place safety, not smoking, and other mostly cultural practices (like not killing each other.)
His point is, if someone is 70, or 75, or 80, they are on a socialized insurance plan.
Those under 70 have a higher mortality rate in the us, which is why the mean life expectency is skewed, however those people are less likely to be on a socialized insurance plan, except maybe medicaid.
Mankiw points to a study by economists June and Dave O’Neill, and writes:
Americans are more likely than Canadians to die by accident or by homicide. For men in their 20s, mortality rates are more than 50% higher in the United States than in Canada, but the O’Neills show that accidents and homicides account for most of that gap. Maybe these differences have lessons for traffic laws and gun control, but they teach us nothing about our system of health care.
1. In a previous CD post, I cited a study from researchers at the University of Iowa that compares unadjusted life expectancy means in OECD countries from 1980-1999 to standardized life expectancy means, which account for the effects of premature death resulting from a non-health-related fatal injury. As the chart above shows (click to enlarge), the U.S. has the highest standardized life expectancy among the OECD countries (76.9 years), and 0.70 years higher than in Canada (76.2 years).
I would tend to agree. It is hard to completely remove outcomes from health care financing, however I would say that the bigger concerns when speaking about this subject are cost and efficiency (maybe transaction costs, number insured, risk, etc), especially when we are referring to advanced nations, which tend to have similar though not equal standards of living.
His argument was: "And yet virtually all the data can extrapolate shows that the "less free" healthcare industries of other large advanced countries outperform ours."
That's not true.
That higher mortality rate is due to non-health related reasons.
I think self managed medical is the best possible system because you remove the middle man, insurance companies and government.
It's funny to me, that the one area we have ignored in the whole health care debate has been the childhood disability issue.
A giant part of the system that has had very little government interference in pricing, subsidy and control.
Charity has taken care of a large portion of the costs of that particular aspect of the system.
All self managed baby.
I know very little about this sector, but I do know SSI does fund some poorer families with disabled children. Plus, you have to figure that some are covered by chip or medicaid. However, how many I do not know.
Yep but SSI and Medicaid only fund poor children.
For middle class and upper income people, there is no other option, unless you want to purposefully impoverish yourself.
SCHIP is relatively new, many of these hospitals and charities were around long before this.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?