For the study, "which has not yet been peer reviewed"
Universal health coverage could save $1T and 114k lives a year: study
281–290 of 1001 posts
Re: Universal health coverage could save $1T and 114k lives a year: study
#282Earlier quoted context omitted.
Here you go, a recent survey: https://www.jgwentworth.com/resources/medical-emergency > The survey showed that over nine in ten (92%) of insured respondents had delayed or avoided medical care because of concern about cost. > In fact, 95% of those surveyed said a medical emergency would likely put them into serious debt even with insurance.
An unexpected car replacement would put most people into serious debt. And there's no insurance for that. People get so hung up on the idea that they should have to pay for health care, when you have to pay for every other necessity in life.
So you didn’t want a citation after all. Alas.
Re: Universal health coverage could save $1T and 114k lives a year: study
#283Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are you saying the government is an efficient allocator of resources?
Per the study we are discussing -- as well as the results from every single other developed country I believe? -- more efficient when it comes to healthcare, yes.
If the government is so efficient, why don't we just have them run all our industries?
Re: Universal health coverage could save $1T and 114k lives a year: study
#284Earlier quoted context omitted.
There was never a guarantee that you were going to keep your plan anyway, was there? Insurance companies are changing plans from year to year.
The plan was cancelled because of ACA requirements. I had had it for several years prior. Yes, plans change, but this was different.
Which requirements made them cancel it? Was it a high deductible scam plan?
Re: Universal health coverage could save $1T and 114k lives a year: study
#285We've been down this road. ACA was predicated on studies like this, to no avail (it turns out that intense opposition chips away at it over time regardless of these studies). I'm of the opinion that, if your solution requires perpetual majority control of legislative, executive, and judicial branches, your solution is in fact a campaign slogan. I'm not saying that this is what is happening now , but I am saying that…
> I'm of the opinion that, if your solution requires perpetual majority control of legislative, executive, and judicial branches, your solution is in fact a campaign slogan.
You mean like overturning Roe v. Wade? Can't ever happen, right?
Re: Universal health coverage could save $1T and 114k lives a year: study
#286Earlier quoted context omitted.
Here you go, a recent survey: https://www.jgwentworth.com/resources/medical-emergency > The survey showed that over nine in ten (92%) of insured respondents had delayed or avoided medical care because of concern about cost. > In fact, 95% of those surveyed said a medical emergency would likely put them into serious debt even with insurance.
An unexpected car replacement would put most people into serious debt. And there's no insurance for that. People get so hung up on the idea that they should have to pay for health care, when you have to pay for every other necessity in life.
[dead]
Re: Universal health coverage could save $1T and 114k lives a year: study
#287Earlier quoted context omitted.
These types of studies, and the goals they aim to support, always frustrate me as solving a surface-level problem rather than root cause. The problem with US healthcare isn't who pays for it, its how damn expensive it is. As always there are multiple factors at play, my list would include corruption, lack of legal accountability/responsibility, and a population that is much less healthy than reasonable. Go after any…
It's extremely challenging to go after high costs in the current system, because the doctors who charge them are popular and the insurance companies who pay them are hated. There was a 2024 story that stuck in my mind ( https://www.npr.org/2024/12/05/nx-s1-5217617/blue-cross-blue... ) when Anthem tried to negotiate down the rate of certain anesthesia procedures; the public was absolutely outraged, successfully demand…
The disconnect between prices and end consumers is itself a huge problem. I should know what care costs before I get it, and I should know how much my instance company is paying on my behalf before I get care.
For prices to be sane we need people being able to compare prices, decide what care they want and can afford, etc. Our prices are so high because its a closed market acting as though it were a free/open market being driven in part by customer decisions.
Re: Universal health coverage could save $1T and 114k lives a year: study
#288Come to a country with universal healthcare (England) and realise that if you work then you're paying 5x the market price for the worst healthcare imaginable. MRI scan - we don't know, one month wait, maybe two. Operation - are you going to die tomorrow with out it? No, ok then that could be years. You need to pay rock bottom wages to doctors to make it work, so guess what all the good doctors leave for private healt…
One of my favorite health care facts: there are more MRI machines in the state of Massachusetts than there are in the entire country of Canada.
Re: Universal health coverage could save $1T and 114k lives a year: study
#289Who's gonna tell the doctors and nurses that they get a 50% pay cut?
You think they’re getting so much money from out current system that cutting out insurance companies would result in a 50% reduction in their pay? Have you ever looked up the size of the health insurance sector here?
That's literally the premise of the report. The savings comes from getting Medicare's current rate sheet for every patient in the entire market.
Re: Universal health coverage could save $1T and 114k lives a year: study
#290Earlier quoted context omitted.
> we could have just expanded Medicaid Laws need votes. If we are going to be unbound by reality then we could "just" put a medbed to cure all diseases, reverse ageing, and regrow limbs using quantum space-age tech in everyone's home.
Too many people think snark is a substitute for insight. The major GOP complaint about the entire thing was that it was the federal government forcing people to buy a product from companies. The Supreme Court ruled that it had that power.
I missed the part of your insight where the GOP would have voted to expanded Medicaid to all.
If they are down for it, I can make a call and it would be a near unanimous vote.