181–190 of 257 posts
So, in this sense, vaccination should be an individual choice? This is something which concerns the individual, but has consequences for society as a whole.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Compared to Europe it does though. I.e. the us healthcare system does't get most of it's payment through taxation. Thats an important distinctions.
I guess. Medicaid and Medicare are more than a third of spending and don't necessarily cover the total costs of the care provided under the programs (any unmet costs are a hidden tax). The VA is not nearly as expansive as those programs but is another couple whole percentage points of US health spending. And you've also got Tri Care and some BIA stuff, and state expenditures that are outside of Medicaid.
My point is that a singlepayer system payed by the taxpayers and budgeted by the politicians isn't making money it can only spend less money.
A system like the american overall can make money, it's it's goal to profit.
That's the difference between whether it's a market driven market or not IMO.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Earlier you write: > Its important to remember that in a state economy where > healthcare is free or semi free it's operated as a cost > center and thus has budgets that are politically mandated > not determined by market demand at least not directly. and later write: > My personal suggestion for a good balanced system is that > most people pay most of the cost for normal healthcare costs > like going to the doctor f…
Not sure exactly what you are confused about. I was responding to a post who claimed that if there isn't free checkup for all then people wouldn't go to get checked. I simply pointed out that even in a country like Denmark which is 100% free people thats not the case. So you would have to show causation between general checkups and cost of healthcare I don't think you will be able to find that.
On the other hand, in Denmark where basic healthcare is free, the data you allude to (but do not present) show that even then "a lot of people don't go for checkups [because] it's not a common thing to do." Additionally, you write "Furthermore the situation is even worse for men over 50."
So my confusion comes from your contradictory assertions about the effects of fully subsidized basic healthcare. Either free healthcare generates cost overruns because people seek out unnecessary treatment, or free healthcare does not generate cost overruns because people do not seek out even necessary treatment.
Your assertions about the effect of free healthcare are paradoxical, hence my confusion.
EDIT: fix typo, recast first sentence of penultimate paragraph. Remove redundant prepositional phrase from last sentence.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
" [] systems also decide who to treat and for what" - in privately owned companies, this decision is made to maximize profits, in publicly owned companies this decision is made to please constituents. "The reason why the US system is so expensive" - Is because an individual with a health condition is in a poor position to negotiate the price of a treatment for themselves. To the extent a private company could give fa…
NO I say this because I have lived both i Denmark and currently live in the US and have had two melanomas and are expecting more because I have more than a thousand of them. So I have a pretty good idea of the capabilities of the US vs. ex the Danish system.
On the other hand, you will likely have been on the receiving end of millions in advertising, and since your 'opinion' is in line with that advertising... its a good bet it is the result of it.
if you are interested in some conflicting 'studies of one' have a watch; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=thkBLpRwdSM
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's no question about it morality - it's immoral. Creating a system where whether you live or die is premised on your income is immoral. Even more so when single-payer systems demonstrably achieve better health outcomes at lower prices. The reality is that that so many people in this country have bought into some kind of Capitalist Calvinism, where the suffering is not only pre-ordained by "market forces," but co…
It's not that simple. Single payer systems also decide who to treat and for what sicknesses, what machines to buy etc. The reason why the US system is so expensive is because of perverse incentives given to the industry. As long as you can afford it I would rather be treated in the US system than the French or Danish system.
Most (but not all) single payer systems coexist with private payer.
In England you can get all your care on the NHS, or you can mix and match with NHS or private care.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not sure exactly what you are confused about. I was responding to a post who claimed that if there isn't free checkup for all then people wouldn't go to get checked. I simply pointed out that even in a country like Denmark which is 100% free people thats not the case. So you would have to show causation between general checkups and cost of healthcare I don't think you will be able to find that.
My confusion comes because in my first two citations you suggest requiring patients to pay for most of their basic/non-life-threatening healthcare. You say this, if I'm not mistaken, because "free or semi free" healthcare is "operated as a cost center". That is, by requiring patients to pay for most of their basic healthcare, that cost center will be reduced because patients will be discouraged from seeking "unnecess…
I am not sure where you get that I want less people to go to the doctor. I just want to be able to pay for the situations you can't afford by asking for money in situations where most people can. And yes if you don't have any money then you should get help, but for people who make enough it should cost something.
So there is nothing paradoxial going on here. You just assumed I wanted fewer people to go to the doctor which I never said anything about.
This is an interesting read. It seems doctors really believe they have a conversation with their patient whereas most patients feel that the doctor just rushes in and gives his standard recommendation without deeper thought and generally doesn't listen to them. Do doctors go to other doctors when they have a problem? Do they get more respect by other doctors? If they went to a doctor and got the same treatment as the…
This is definitely more at the specialist, chronic care level. Like anything else, if you have a weekly contact with them, you are much more significant than a once or twice a year visit.
I can't imagine how bad software development would be if we acted like the medical system.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
EU systems get much better outcomes for a fraction of the cost, and you think that's 'unsustainable'? 'lobbying' can be dealt with a either side of the pond, the only thing you are arguing for is making profit from the poor and sick.
Better outcomes doesn't shield you from in-sustainability if your cost still is bigger than the money you can afford to put into it. The problem with healthcare is that you can never spend enough money on it. There are always methods, never and better machines. In a singlepayer system the taxpayers pay for that which means there need to be political mandate behind the budgetting. You can only spend money in a singlep…
"you can never spend enough money on it" - i say again, 'enough' is defined differently, a 'socialist enough' is enough to please the people; where a 'capitalist enough' is the smallest number that can sustain profit. these 'enough's are radically different.
"In a system more driven by market you can actually make money." - only by denying treatment. this is the cornerstone of the market model, those who can't pay don't matter.
"It's finding the right balance between those two" - In the UK, we are bringing private companies into contracts within the NHS, its always been a disaster, costing much more money that the services needed to cost, the inefficiency inherent in private companies (from bloated wages of CEOs to dividends) drag the whole system into financial crisis. The people who pay for the profits at the top are always the poor users of the service.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
NO I say this because I have lived both i Denmark and currently live in the US and have had two melanomas and are expecting more because I have more than a thousand of them. So I have a pretty good idea of the capabilities of the US vs. ex the Danish system.
Sorry about your problems, but you are a study of one, your experiences might be typical or atypical, flip a coin. On the other hand, you will likely have been on the receiving end of millions in advertising, and since your 'opinion' is in line with that advertising... its a good bet it is the result of it. if you are interested in some conflicting 'studies of one' have a watch; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=thkBLp…
I know the documentary but what does that have to do with whether the US system have access to more advanced healthcare than most other places.
I don't need a documentary to tell me the many issues with the US system just like I don't need one to tell me the many issues with the Danish system.