re: Is healthcare coverage a right?

quote:

---

Because people have no sense of money. And how economics works

---

Right. People wrap up all kinds of hypothetical emotion and fear but almost none of it is realistic.

If you have inoperable stage 4 pancreatic cancer--you don't need insurance at all. You're going to die. It's just a question of how much of a drain on others you're going to be.

But you can bet our system will spend millions in uncompensated care for them. All while leftists tell us how inadequate, cruel, and excessively expensive our "system" is.

quote:

---

---

Thanks for proving my points out the irrationality.

quote:

---

I have a few problems with that chart.

1) Americans many times CHOOSE to spend insane amounts on end of life care, an option not always available in European nations, perhaps for good reason I may add.

2) It assumes that a dollar in health care tax dollars would supply the same amount of care in those countries as in america. What if there is some other factor in America that would require MORE healthcare dollars than what a swede pays?

Thorpe, a health economist not against single payer, has estimated:

---

I think the flaw I am seeing is that you are framing it as single-payer vs the present day American system.

Every country has built its UHC to its unique situation. True most follow the broad outline of 3 or 4 types of systems, but within each there is a lot of variance.

Sanders plan is poor for a number of factors, biggest of all it is enormously disruptive and would require MASSIVE up front costs to transition to because it ignores that every other country didn't radically tear down their existing structure to get to their UHC system. And all did it before their systems swallowed 18% of GDP spending.

To your points:

1.)In other countries people do as well. Supplemental insurance is a resource of the wealthy in UHC countries. Even so, we still spend the second most in public dollars per capita.

2.) This seems to be a price question. We pay a lot for the same sort of care compared to other countries. Thats partly why the cost numbers are so high.

No.

And a bonus no, neither is education.

That leads to a whole other problem entitlement programs over half of our debt is to American people from entitlement programs guess what percentage of the debt is to China... less than 5%

quote:

---

In the wealthiest nation on earth though it can be much more affordable than it is....

---

Its always amusing when people cite "the wealthiest nation on earth" as justification for lowest prices on earth. The exact opposite is true.

Prices are always going to reflect ability to pay (have a look at college educationpricing correlations subsidies sometime). It only makes sense that "the wealthiest nation on earth" is going to have high prices for something as in-demand as healthcare.

It's why comparisons with poorer nations are silly prima facie.

quote:

---

It's why comparisons with poorer nations are silly prima facie.

---

Its not silly when kids die for want of basic healthcare and we have higher infant mortality rates than many nations which are much poorer then we are....infant mortality isn't amusing to most folks...

quote:

---

This point can be used as a weapon by either side of the political spectrum, imo.

It's not an issue of American free market vs European single payer. America already has almost a third of its people on a government plan, and it pays third most per capita on GOVERNMENT spending.

---

Very true.

I would go even further, we actually, unique to America, balance roughly 5 different models of healthcare simultaneously.

The VA = Beveridge model

Medicare/Medicaid = National Health Insurance Model

Employer market = A weak and poorly established Bismark Model.

Obamacare = A variation on the Bismarck that loosely resembles Switzerland's system.

Uninsured: out-of-pocket model. What poor and many non-industrialized countries have.

This complexity certainly adds to the cost of our system. In fact some of the negative effects of the employer tax credits creates a rare bi-partisan agreement amongst most economists. And the fractured and poorly regulated nature of our system(s) allows a lot of gaming from industries like pharmaceuticals. The argument I would make is that there is yet to be a success story of free market health care in the idealistic ways many conservatives talk about. So the evidence so far is not on their side in terms of what endpoint would be best in terms of cost, quality, coverage and sustainability.

quote:

---

None of that is shown on the patient's EOB. But those are just bullshart to leave patients with the feeling of OMG I'm glad I have insurance or that toenail clipping would have been $50,000. Instead it was only $75.

---

Thats what makes 80/20 or 90/10 plans egregious. You are left responsible for 20% of a bill that's fricking pulled from an anus.