The Reverse Mandate of the Senate Bill

[Helix]

My Conclusion: America is the destination for those seeking expensive top-tier medical treatment for a reason and those reasons need to be upheld and protected even as some form of universal care is drafted to address the problem of the Americans not included in the current benefits.

people with a lot of money have a lot of choices when it comes to health care tourism, and America isn't the only destination. that isn't a good justification for our haphazard, overpriced, and inefficient system.

Those distinctions mean nothing in the real world. Doctors are not free to practice their craft but are highly regulated by central planners. There is lower quality care [through limited resources, prices & options] and rising deferred costs [distinctions on mandatory verse elective]. There are many innovative private clinics and approaches in the States which are not possible in Canada. Tests, drugs and resources are very rationed in Canada.

and they're rationed here, too, in different ways, usually depending on ability to pay.

My Conclusion: It not awful or Soviet Union style rationing, but its a system with very little choice or opportunity for innovation and honestly I think the care is stuck at a 1984 level [year it was designed] compared to the modern level I receive here in the United States where they use more tests and utilize the modern technologies. Granted that is entirely subjective. But fast forward 100 years and see who still has modern medicine and who stuck in a previous century? We already see Canada using more dated technology compared to the States in more and more cases.

and doing the same thing because of socioeconomic disparity is somehow a better way? i don't see it, and the data doesn't support it.

Canada is a lot more sparsely populated than the States making this rural urban divide a much bigger deal. Their doctor to citizen ratio should be way higher than the States or other more dense countries. We are talking huge commutes to population centres with very little incentive or ability to encourage quality rural care. When we talking Canada aboriginal population who culturally are more likely to live in these rural regions often we have a level of care worse than that of an uninsured Americans.

My Conclusion: Healthcare is a challenge for both countries and the world, all who face unique issues and things to teach. There is a doctor shortage in both countries [but more so Canada] due to the medical boards and nursing unions preventing wide-spread supply of regulated specialized technical medical specialists and nutritionists to lower the labour costs of treating health issues as a whole. Choosing instead to boost salaries for a restricted group of over-qualified general physicians who throw out much of their training in favour of specialization anyway and who oversee even more generalized trained nurses/workers who work in evermore specialized aspects of medicine.

then improve the system. for most people in Canada, trading even for the US system wouldn't be a step up. if either of the proposed versions of the AHCA pass, a lot of rural hospitals are going to close. we'd be better off making it a lot less expensive to become a doctor. that's another part of our system that is exceptionally poorly designed.

 

[Helix]

It does but coming with a huge impact on the quality of life of many working class, wealthy and young Canadians who do not receive good care or opportunities to innovate or benefit from technology in this important medical industry of the future. Socialism 101, bullying the wealthy to pay for a program on moral grounds then not allowing anyone to put pressure on its new baby all so it can dictate terms, prices and access, keeping the people hostage.

Within 15 years, even with the inevitable service cuts every province in Canada is on track to spend every new tax dollar on health care and creep further into debt and deficit spending. The federal government is in no position to help. In an already highly tax society where does that leave those young now less healthy people? Worse off...So I'll gamble with the States system which still has the room to fix her problems. I'll take a moral problem over a systematic financing problem any-day.

most likely, our system won't be fixed until the problem reaches critical mass, and even then, it will take a while. i'd rather address the problems before that happens.

as for increased taxes, i would take that over premium and deductible roulette. before you form a concrete impression of the US system, you really need to work five or ten different jobs and use healthcare under each one, including in between jobs. i wouldn't wish that on anyone or even recommend it, but that's the only way that you're ever going to get an accurate impression on how different our system can be depending on your specific circumstances.

 

[Conaeolos]

First thank for reding all that it was huge.

higher taxes are much better than a healthy adult paying a ton of money in premiums and deductibles

Like I said, taxes are goign to have to go up either way but who they impact probably does not include you as much based on your experience with your insurance and I am thus not surprised your looking for any other opinion. Disparity in quality is at the crux of the American problem unfortunately I think the majoritystill have it better but its extremely hard to measure or know if or when that changes/changed.

i'll take higher taxes and less money spent on defense.

Yes, allies need to start pulling their weight. We need to scale back our global entanglements and the defence budget needs to be pruned in order to meet domestic security concerns like healthcare reform. A must before we even talk trying another public intervention like Obama care part 2.

i truly doubt that Canadians are going broke from heart attacks

Their not but they are when they can’t work cause they can’t get a hip replacement for 4 years. It trade offs. Both systems are very cumbersome for different reasons and we need to take stock of the mistakes Canada made with their solution in comparison to our own and like you said take the best of the systems different countries have tried.

a blended system is fine. however, your coverage shouldn't largely depend on where you work, where you live, how much money you have or don't have, when you started your job, etc.

Well the way I view it, it must be a well blended system otherwise your trading one set of problem for another. I think though you hit one of the problems I see from the other end. It framed as a matter of coverage verses what should be universally covered like say pregnancy, dental, small cuts & bruises, broken legs, immunization etc. verses what is insurance: hip replacement, cancer, braces, and even a heart attack etc.

 

[Conaeolos]

you have to admit that this is significant

I would. My point is the numbers like defence spending must be taken in context. My solution is complex and starts with a scale back to make room lean cost effective and targeted public safety net that susitainable unlike many other attempts.

my cut finger wouldn't have cost almost two grand out of pocket in Canada...that's ridiculous.

My guess is not nearly based on my comparisons of other services and it would obviously cost you none out of pocket as few people have saving which is part of the financing problem. You also would face less barriers to care.A wait time at the medi-clinic you might wait 20 mins. So by every measure for medical expenses like this single payer is superior it just doesn’t transfer to all or most medical expenses.

and if you can't afford it, it is worse unless you really can't afford it (at least until they gut Medicaid.) that isn't a preferable system.

For many people yes hence the moral problem.

it would be better to cover all basic care under one entity.

As long as we can strictly define basic care and not block private we can have a winner. My point is Canada does a very poor job of finding a balance and tried to cover too much which means given time their system will collapse and it might even be in our lifetime its so bad.

health care is an essential service with inelastic demand. market solutions fall apart all over the place in that dynamic.

I disagree it has inelastic demand there are big difference in what people seek out based on price/availability etc, but I agree there are aspects of healthcare that make it different from other markets and insurence isn't the right beast.

doing the same thing because of socioeconomic disparity is somehow a better way? i don't see it, and the data doesn't support it.

That depends a lot of which end falls in the majority and which the minority. At the moment the majority has better care and we shouldn't be so quick to throw that away.

for most people in Canada, trading even for the US system wouldn't be a step up.

Actually that might not be true.

most likely, our system won't be fixed until the problem reaches critical mass, and even then, it will take a while. i'd rather address the problems before that happens.

I agree that the AHCA does not solve critical issues. I do however see the need to scale back the interference that making the current private healthcare worse verse jumping in and growing a systemic funding problem like in Canada. I certainly far prefer simpler forms such as those proposed by Rand Paul. I also think the cuts to future spending promises are pragmatic move so better to hurt now then bleed to death later.

In the meantime I hope democrats and republicans alike do some soul searching on how to attack some major things that need doing: balancing the budget, scaling back military intervention/global policing, social security reform, basic universal healthcare for services everyone needs, tax code simplification, debt reduction, criminal code audit, deflating the bubble in banking, insurance and housing prices, maternity support, repairing the economic safety-net etc.

Alas, like you I think it more likely we just waiting for some crisis of critical mass :-| But at least with low taxes we have a potential revenue base a lot higher than some in similar dire straits: here is looking at you Canada.

 

[jaeger19]

US care is already rationed by cost, your specific plan, where you work, and where you live. i don't agree that this is a better system.
.

And again you are comparing apples to soccer balls. they might both be round but there the difference ends. Our "rationing" is nothing like what happens in Canada or other countries.

and when people wait to get treatment until they are really sick, we all pay more for care. that's one of the reasons why healthcare is so expensive here.

Yep.. but that's a problem all over.. even in places that have single payer care. People avoid going to the doctor for all sorts of reasons.. mostly having not to do with the actual cost of healthcare. But usually having to do with the effect taking a day off to see the physician.. or have treatments etc does to your job.

that sounds a lot like what we're looking at with "high risk pools," only that's a much poorer way to address the problem. put everyone in the same pool, and the costs will be diluted

. Right.. and if the public option essentially becomes the high risk pool the costs are not diluted.. they are put on the taxpayer.

 

[jaeger19]

most likely, our system won't be fixed until the problem reaches critical mass, and even then, it will take a while. i'd rather address the problems before that happens.

as for increased taxes, i would take that over premium and deductible roulette. before you form a concrete impression of the US system, you really need to work five or ten different jobs and use healthcare under each one, including in between jobs. i wouldn't wish that on anyone or even recommend it, but that's the only way that you're ever going to get an accurate impression on how different our system can be depending on your specific circumstances.

Hmmmm.. so now you have heard from someone that has experienced Canadian healthcare.. and experience US healthcare.

Pretty darn close to what I said isn't it.

Perhaps you should spend some time in the Canadian system, since "that's the only way that you're ever going to get an accurate impression".. of what single payer is truly like.

Do you notice how much you are moving the goal posts here Helix? I hope this conversation has made you think about the accuracy of your premise.

 

[Helix]

First thank for reding all that it was huge.


Like I said, taxes are goign to have to go up either way but who they impact probably does not include you as much based on your experience with your insurance and I am thus not surprised your looking for any other opinion. Disparity in quality is at the crux of the American problem unfortunately I think the majoritystill have it better but its extremely hard to measure or know if or when that changes/changed.

no problem. thanks for your perspective on the issue.

my insurance is decent now, though i haven't used it extensively, knock on wood. if we were to get the kind of health care system that i think that we should have, it will affect me negatively in a different way, but i still support it. our system is just so situational, inefficient, and unsustainable that something really needs to be done.

Yes, allies need to start pulling their weight. We need to scale back our global entanglements and the defence budget needs to be pruned in order to meet domestic security concerns like healthcare reform. A must before we even talk trying another public intervention like Obama care part 2.

we definitely need to re-prioritize. that's the best way to put it without me turning this into a long diatribe about interventionism.

Their not but they are when they can’t work cause they can’t get a hip replacement for 4 years. It trade offs. Both systems are very cumbersome for different reasons and we need to take stock of the mistakes Canada made with their solution in comparison to our own and like you said take the best of the systems different countries have tried.

i agree with most of that. if a more socialized system results in delays, then that's something that needs to be addressed. however, addressing delays is a lot different than a system in which a significant chunk of the population is avoiding care because it's so damned expensive while others have a completely different experience because of income level or where they work or live.

Well the way I view it, it must be a well blended system otherwise your trading one set of problem for another. I think though you hit one of the problems I see from the other end. It framed as a matter of coverage verses what should be universally covered like say pregnancy, dental, small cuts & bruises, broken legs, immunization etc. verses what is insurance: hip replacement, cancer, braces, and even a heart attack etc.

even if we eventually get a single payer system that approaches what i support, i'm sure that the private health insurance industry will still play some role in it. i'd like that role to be a lot less significant, though.

 

[Helix]

I would. My point is the numbers like defence spending must be taken in context. My solution is complex and starts with a scale back to make room lean cost effective and targeted public safety net that susitainable unlike many other attempts.


My guess is not nearly based on my comparisons of other services and it would obviously cost you none out of pocket as few people have saving which is part of the financing problem. You also would face less barriers to care.A wait time at the medi-clinic you might wait 20 mins. So by every measure for medical expenses like this single payer is superior it just doesn’t transfer to all or most medical expenses.


For many people yes hence the moral problem.


As long as we can strictly define basic care and not block private we can have a winner. My point is Canada does a very poor job of finding a balance and tried to cover too much which means given time their system will collapse and it might even be in our lifetime its so bad.

i don't support completely excluding private insurance. however, that should be a nice to have rather than a must have for most working people who are sure to need it at some point.

I disagree it has inelastic demand there are big difference in what people seek out based on price/availability etc, but I agree there are aspects of healthcare that make it different from other markets and insurence isn't the right beast.

health care is definitely an essential service with inelastic demand. when you're sick or hurt at a greater level than you can fix with OTC, you're going to get care regardless of the cost, and you're going to get it locally. that's a level of demand that bends market forces past where they are useful. it's often akin to the only game in town selling water and gasoline after a natural disaster. that's why we have gouging laws.

That depends a lot of which end falls in the majority and which the minority. At the moment the majority has better care and we shouldn't be so quick to throw that away.

and yet, people in other first world countries have life expectancies as good or better than ours at a fraction of the cost.

Actually that might not be true.

and then again, it might. it would largely depend on who they work for, where they live, and how much money that they have or don't have. i sure wouldn't take that gamble.

I agree that the AHCA does not solve critical issues. I do however see the need to scale back the interference that making the current private healthcare worse verse jumping in and growing a systemic funding problem like in Canada. I certainly far prefer simpler forms such as those proposed by Rand Paul. I also think the cuts to future spending promises are pragmatic move so better to hurt now then bleed to death later.

i used to be a Paulite, though it was his dad rather than Rand. just remember that no matter what happens, that dude is definitely not going broke from health care expenses ever. whichever way we decide to go, all politicians should be covered by the median level of the new system, IMO.

In the meantime I hope democrats and republicans alike do some soul searching on how to attack some major things that need doing: balancing the budget, scaling back military intervention/global policing, social security reform, basic universal healthcare for services everyone needs, tax code simplification, debt reduction, criminal code audit, deflating the bubble in banking, insurance and housing prices, maternity support, repairing the economic safety-net etc.

Alas, like you I think it more likely we just waiting for some crisis of critical mass :-| But at least with low taxes we have a potential revenue base a lot higher than some in similar dire straits: here is looking at you Canada.

the other and arguably more significant issue affecting our system is the whole Republican / Democrat teamsport thing with a healthy dose of gerrymandering mixed in. they're not going to work together unless things get significantly awful. that's a real problem. if you want to see the reason, look at the article comments on any major news outlet that still allows them. it's is almost never two people having a discussion like we are currently. it's all "**** you, idiot" in-group out-group nonsense. we're still far too tribal to be limited to two teams. i don't believe that our bipartisan duopoly can continue to function long term.

 

[Helix]

And again you are comparing apples to soccer balls. they might both be round but there the difference ends. Our "rationing" is nothing like what happens in Canada or other countries.

depends on where you work, where you live, and how much money you have or don't have.

Yep.. but that's a problem all over.. even in places that have single payer care. People avoid going to the doctor for all sorts of reasons.. mostly having not to do with the actual cost of healthcare. But usually having to do with the effect taking a day off to see the physician.. or have treatments etc does to your job.

and mostly, whether you can afford it / whether your insurance covers it / a whole plethora of reasons. it's an extremely situational system.

. Right.. and if the public option essentially becomes the high risk pool the costs are not diluted.. they are put on the taxpayer.

of course it's diluted when everyone is the same pool.

Hmmmm.. so now you have heard from someone that has experienced Canadian healthcare.. and experience US healthcare.

Pretty darn close to what I said isn't it.

Perhaps you should spend some time in the Canadian system, since "that's the only way that you're ever going to get an accurate impression".. of what single payer is truly like.

Do you notice how much you are moving the goal posts here Helix? I hope this conversation has made you think about the accuracy of your premise.

are you actually reading the discussion?

 

[jaeger19]

health care is definitely an essential service with inelastic demand. when you're sick or hurt at a greater level than you can fix with OTC, you're going to get care regardless of the cost, and you're going to get it locally. that's a level of demand that bends market forces past where they are useful. it's often akin to the only game in town selling water and gasoline after a natural disaster. that's why we have gouging laws.
.

Nope. not really.

and yet, people in other first world countries have life expectancies as good or better than ours at a fraction of the cost.

Yep because waiting years for a total hip does not kill you. Sucks though... awful quality of life but does not kill you.

 

[jaeger19]

depends on where you work, where you live, and how much money you have or don't have.

Just like in every other country... except for the fact that our poor have a better insurance on average than the government insurances in almost all single payer countries.

and mostly, whether you can afford it / whether your insurance covers it / a whole plethora of reasons. it's an extremely situational system.

just like other countries with single payer.. its just worse there..... how long did his Dad have to wait for a hip?

of course it's diluted when everyone is the same pool.

Not if its a high risk pool.

are you actually reading the discussion?

Absolutely... the question is whether you are...

 

[Helix]

Nope. not really.

yes, really.

Yep because waiting years for a total hip does not kill you. Sucks though... awful quality of life but does not kill you.

odd that the quality of life indexes don't seem to reflect your opinion. well, actually not, but still.

 

[Helix]

Just like in every other country... except for the fact that our poor have a better insurance on average than the government insurances in almost all single payer countries.

like i said, American health care is situational, depending on where you work, where you live, and how much money you have or don't have. under a single payer system, it's not as situational.

just like other countries with single payer.. its just worse there..... how long did his Dad have to wait for a hip?

the data doesn't support your assertion.

Not if its a high risk pool.

putting everyone in the same pool does not make the entire pool a high risk pool. stop wasting my time.

Absolutely... the question is whether you are...

i doubt that anyone who is actually reading the discussion would argue that i'm the one who is not reading it.

 

[jaeger19]

yes, really.



odd that the quality of life indexes don't seem to reflect your opinion. well, actually not, but still.

Actually functional measures do reflect my premise. You just don't understand what you think you are talking about.

1. You used the measurement of age of mortality. THAT does not include things like how long you wait for a total hip.

2. When you measure quality of life.. those measurements are over a total populace.. they do not tease out what happens to the person that waits for a year for a total hip.

But whatever... I presented the facts backed by the Canadian government websites and studies.. you have nothing to dispute them. A person who grew up in Canada and dealt with both US and Canadian healthcare.. basically confirmed EVERYTHING I said...

 

[jaeger19]

like i said, American health care is situational, depending on where you work, where you live, and how much money you have or don't have. under a single payer system, it's not as situational.

.

And as I said.. 1. It is situational in single payer countries as well. In fact I presented an excerpt from a fellow who had to pay privately for his wifes medication in Canada because his employer switched insurance.

2. Though it is situational.. the fact remains that the poor person on Medicaid has a better deal than most single payer insurances.. particularly Canada;s

the data doesn't support your assertion.

the Data most certainly supports my assertion.. and the Experience of the Canadian person on this board. (who you REALLY wanted to hear from).. confirmed with personal experience what the data shows.

putting everyone in the same pool does not make the entire pool a high risk pool. stop wasting my time.

Ummm... putting everyone who is high risk/expensive.. into the same pool most certainly makes it a high risk pool.. stop wasting EVERYONES time.

i doubt that anyone who is actually reading the discussion would argue that i'm the one who is not reading it.

Sure.......

 

[Helix]

Actually functional measures do reflect my premise. You just don't understand what you think you are talking about.

1. You used the measurement of age of mortality. THAT does not include things like how long you wait for a total hip.

2. When you measure quality of life.. those measurements are over a total populace.. they do not tease out what happens to the person that waits for a year for a total hip.

But whatever... I presented the facts backed by the Canadian government websites and studies.. you have nothing to dispute them. A person who grew up in Canada and dealt with both US and Canadian healthcare.. basically confirmed EVERYTHING I said...

here's a chart which breaks it down category by category.



the US does better than Canada in some areas, ranks lower in others, and costs almost twice as much. meanwhile, other first world nations with socialized medicine beat both countries hands down.

and here's the quality of life index by nation :

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Where-to-be-born_Index#2013_rankings

so, do you support changing the US system to more closely resemble higher ranking first world nations?

 

[Helix]

And as I said.. 1. It is situational in single payer countries as well. In fact I presented an excerpt from a fellow who had to pay privately for his wifes medication in Canada because his employer switched insurance.

2. Though it is situational.. the fact remains that the poor person on Medicaid has a better deal than most single payer insurances.. particularly Canada;s



the Data most certainly supports my assertion.. and the Experience of the Canadian person on this board. (who you REALLY wanted to hear from).. confirmed with personal experience what the data shows.



Ummm... putting everyone who is high risk/expensive.. into the same pool most certainly makes it a high risk pool.. stop wasting EVERYONES time.




Sure.......

no, putting everyone into the same pool dilutes risk. for the rest, see my previous post.

 

[jaeger19]

here's a chart which breaks it down category by category.

View attachment 67219791

the US does better than Canada in some areas, ranks lower in others, and costs almost twice as much. meanwhile, other first world nations with socialized medicine beat both countries hands down.

and here's the quality of life index by nation :

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Where-to-be-born_Index#2013_rankings

so, do you support changing the US system to more closely resemble higher ranking first world nations?

the US also does better than other countries on categories as well. Like EFFECTIVE CARE. and TIMELINESS of care. and PAtient Centered Care.

Meanwhile other countries DO NOT beat the US hands down. where they beat the us is thins like efficiency and equity.. and why? Because not all of our citizens have healthcare insurance. Roughly 10-15% don't have healthcare insurance. But if you have insurance .. you dang well want to be in the US.. In the reality is that if everyone in America had insurance.. those 3 and 4 would be 1... hands down.

So.. does it make sense to you.. to reduce the care that 90% of americans have.. to go to an single payer to cover 100% of people?


OR does it makes sense to keep the American system that does so well on timeliness and quality and effectiveness of care... and simply find a way to get the 10% insurance.?

 

[jaeger19]

no, putting everyone into the same pool dilutes risk. for the rest, see my previous post.

Again... putting everyone high risk into a high risk pool does not dilute risk.

For the rest.. see my previous post.

 

[Helix]

the US also does better than other countries on categories as well. Like EFFECTIVE CARE. and TIMELINESS of care. and PAtient Centered Care.

Meanwhile other countries DO NOT beat the US hands down. where they beat the us is thins like efficiency and equity.. and why? Because not all of our citizens have healthcare insurance. Roughly 10-15% don't have healthcare insurance. But if you have insurance .. you dang well want to be in the US.. In the reality is that if everyone in America had insurance.. those 3 and 4 would be 1... hands down.

we're basically paying a LOT more for the same results, only a little faster than some other first world nations for some specific services. well, those of us who aren't priced out of the system or rationed by our insurance plans, that is.

So.. does it make sense to you.. to reduce the care that 90% of americans have.. to go to an single payer to cover 100% of people?

i don't agree with the premise of the question.

OR does it makes sense to keep the American system that does so well on timeliness and quality and effectiveness of care... and simply find a way to get the 10% insurance.?

costs have to come down, and they need to be less situational. the current setup is not sustainable.

 

[Helix]

Again... putting everyone high risk into a high risk pool does not dilute risk.

For the rest.. see my previous post.

putting everyone in the same pool does dilute risk.

WHO | Pooling

What one expensive patient teaches us about risk pooling | Physicians for a National Health Program

 

[jaeger19]

we're basically paying a LOT more for the same results, only a little faster than some other first world nations for some specific services. well, those of us who aren't priced out of the system or rationed by our insurance plans, that is.
.

Actually if you were to look at our results.. we rank 3.. so we are getting better results. And if we covered that 10% that aren't covered in the US.. we would likely be number one.

And yes.. we are getting better timeliness of care..

And as far as price out of the system or rationed... other countries do exactly the same or worse.. even though they have single payer. You keep forgetting that fact.. like that depending on your employer depends on whether you have insurance for your wifes cancer medication..

You keep forgetting that many countries have TWO WHOLE MEDICAL SYSTEMS.. not just insurance but systems for those with government insurance.. and those with private insurance. Meanwhile in the US.. the guy with Medicaid is in the same room with the fellow with blue cross blue shield.

don't agree with the premise of the question.

And that's just avoidance. the fact is that if you went to single payer.. that is like other countries.. it would mean a DECREASE in coverage for 80-90% of americans.. They would lose such things as outpatient therapies, durable medical equipment, home care.. and coverage for medication... something that some 85% of americans currently have. and you want them to reduce coverage so that you cover.. now 100% of americans.

I would suggest it makes more sense to simply figure out how to cover that 10% or so without insurance in America.. rather than screw everyone else.

costs have to come down, and they need to be less situational. the current setup is not sustainable.

And based exactly on what? You don't even seem to realize that medical costs per patient HAVE gone down and have been constrained since the 1990's. Reimbursements are down. the only reason that we see increases in overall costs is BECASUE MORE PEOPLE NEED SERVICES.

And what do you think happens to the economy when you decide to hurt the industry that's providing jobs right here in the US... that can't easily outsource them to china? What happens to local economies when you kill their number one employer?

You have not thought this through Helix.. and have come up with a knee jerk solution that makes everything worse.

 

[jaeger19]

putting everyone in the same pool does dilute risk.

WHO | Pooling

What one expensive patient teaches us about risk pooling | Physicians for a National Health Program

Not when you put everyone that's high risk into a high risk pool. that's why its called a "high risk pool"..

From YOUR article.:

The important aspect of the Iowa case is what it tells us about the importance of spreading risk in the healthcare market, and the limitations of the Republican nostrum of segregating seriously ill patients into high-risk pools.

Putting high risk people into a high risk pool.. DOES NOT SPREAD OUT THE RISK.

 

[Helix]

Actually if you were to look at our results.. we rank 3.. so we are getting better results. And if we covered that 10% that aren't covered in the US.. we would likely be number one.

in effectiveness of care? the UK ranks #1 and pays less than half price. do you support a health care system more like the UK?

And yes.. we are getting better timeliness of care..

for double the price.

And as far as price out of the system or rationed... other countries do exactly the same or worse.. even though they have single payer. You keep forgetting that fact.. like that depending on your employer depends on whether you have insurance for your wifes cancer medication..

our health care is rationed by specific employment, cost, and insurance plan. some folks have it better than citizens of other countries, and a lot have it worse. it's very situational.

You keep forgetting that many countries have TWO WHOLE MEDICAL SYSTEMS.. not just insurance but systems for those with government insurance.. and those with private insurance. Meanwhile in the US.. the guy with Medicaid is in the same room with the fellow with blue cross blue shield.

see above.

And that's just avoidance. the fact is that if you went to single payer.. that is like other countries.. it would mean a DECREASE in coverage for 80-90% of americans.. They would lose such things as outpatient therapies, durable medical equipment, home care.. and coverage for medication... something that some 85% of americans currently have. and you want them to reduce coverage so that you cover.. now 100% of americans.

i don't agree that it would be a worse situation for the average patient.

I would suggest it makes more sense to simply figure out how to cover that 10% or so without insurance in America.. rather than screw everyone else.

i also don't agree with this assumption.

And based exactly on what? You don't even seem to realize that medical costs per patient HAVE gone down and have been constrained since the 1990's. Reimbursements are down. the only reason that we see increases in overall costs is BECASUE MORE PEOPLE NEED SERVICES.

odd. costs don't seem to have gone down since 1990.

And what do you think happens to the economy when you decide to hurt the industry that's providing jobs right here in the US... that can't easily outsource them to china? What happens to local economies when you kill their number one employer?

You have not thought this through Helix.. and have come up with a knee jerk solution that makes everything worse.

then why aren't other first world countries experiencing the disaster that the American right claims will happen here if we adopt a different system system? are we the only first world country that can't pull it off?

 

[Helix]

Not when you put everyone that's high risk into a high risk pool. that's why its called a "high risk pool"..

From YOUR article.:



Putting high risk people into a high risk pool.. DOES NOT SPREAD OUT THE RISK.

dude, you just quoted the part which says that putting everyone into the same pool dilutes risk. that's what i'm arguing.