Despite all these complaints about wait times, how can you guys argue with the fact that almost every country with UHC has a higher life expectancy and lower infant mortality rate than the United States? Surely wait times aren't as large of a factor when it comes to quality of care as you guys think it is.
because we like to drive cars instead of walk, eat the bigger burger and drink the larger coke. life expectancy has very little to do with quality of care in first world nations.
I wish we would keep EVERYTHING the same EXCEPT refuse to pay the high prices for medication. Other countries are riding our high prices and using it to pay bottom dollar. We fund all the R&D and if we stopped then other countries would have to reneg.
IMO we desperately need to reform/upgrade/change our health care system. This is the prime reason I am in the Obama camp. However, if we do extend health benefits to all in a Medicare-type of setup, then we need to pass immigration laws. The two issues are IMO inextricably intertwined. Without laws with teeth (for example, fining employers and landlords $10,000 per illegal alien --undocumented worker if you will -- in their employ are living in their housing), the current flow of illegals will look more like Niagara Falls. If we force them using economics to go home, then we can afford to provide affordable health care.
I'm referring specifically to the adminstrative costs - I am not advocating Medicare as a comprehensive solution to the health care crisis. You claimed that a large government health care program was not likely to be able to improve on teh staggering amount of administrative costs factored into our current private system. The available empirical eevidence both (1) at home, and (2) abroad - indicates the exact opposite of your assumption. An anectdote about one of your doctors falls flat here. If we tried to apply it to the situation I'm discussing, you're making the bizarre argument that if Medicare merely increased its administrative costs, it would offer increased coverage - when in fact logically the opposite would happen.
Except that they can raise prices on and on forever and ever because there's no supply demand dynamics in place. People just pay a higher premium not knowing where that extra money is going. So everyone just increases, because health care really isn't a choice, you have to do it. That's why it's so expensive....because people are making money on things people don't have much choice on. If you have to have your appendix removed, you can't say no - the only other option is to die. That has a way of driving up costs in an unregulated industry where you can't bargin down each item. No, we need regulation. You should have to pay 10 times more for a guaze pad than you would at a walgreens. Thats just stupid. Or 50 times more to sleep in a hospital than a luxury hotel. Or twice as much for a walker when the same one from walmart is half the price. Something is messed up here. In a big way. Drug companies spent such a small portion of their expenses on R&D relative to the profit they bring in. Do you know how much a company reals in profits? Pfizer pulled in profits of 8 billion last year, on a profit margin of 16% (on revenues of 48 billion). They make the oil companies look middle class. There's no controls and it's not a free market. Its not capitalism at all. People should be able to get a quote on costs and have options to reduce costs. In terms of universal health care - I am not for it. I think people who smoke or abuse their bodies shouldn't get free health care. If you smoke, you should be on your own. If you want health care, you should have to quit. If you are obese, no health care unless you obesity is a result of some sort of illness. And I don't think health care should be given to unemployed folks over the age of 18 unless they are in college or have a disability. So in essence - for an adult to qualify for free health care the following should be required:
Sure...because we all know that there will be greater coverage when there are fewer people willing to provide the service. If you believe that doctors will rush at the chance to lose money, that is your choice. I just disagree.
I don't know if the tort reform thing was a lie, but I do know that a neurologist practicing for 10 years that has never been sued in 2005 shelled out $14,000 a month for malpractice coverage.
.html]life expectancy[/URL]. We barely crack the top 50 in infant mortality and life expectancy. Those race car drivin', Biggie-sizin', Whopper-eatin' babies are completely to blame for their own death rate, two to three times that of the best countries? Quality and availability of health care to our nation's middle class and poor is irrelevant? Man up, dead babies: you deserved it. USA! USA! USA! Still a better healthcare system than Albania. Cuba: maybe, maybe no. Not a lie: just a severe, politically expedient exaggeration/red herring. Malpractice suit payouts are a drop in the bucket compared to the peaks and valleys of insurance companies' investments. As insurance companies' stock market portfolios fluctuate, patient/customer rates are adjusted.
So your anectdote about medicare = proves "doctors [will lose money]" = no way that government-sponsored healthcare plan can possibly provide more efficient coverage than the current system - despite the evidence to the contrary of it doing so both (1) in the US, and (2) outside the US That argument sucks.
I never said that government-sponsored healthcare cannot provide efficient coverage. I did say that expending Medicare is not the answer. It would have to be modified. You see, in markets there are buyers (patients) and sellers (doctors). If the seller cannot make a profit, they will cease to provide the service. If that is the case, explain to everybody how a doctor losing money every time he/she performs a procedure will somehow mystically and magically translate into a more efficient and effective provision of services. Keep sticking your head in the sand if you'd like. Ignoring economic reality leads to an outcome that sucks.
And I never said that it was - for the third/fourth time I am bringing it up to refute your assumption that a government sponsored program would be incapable of minimizing waste. You realize this by now surely.
While I believe that you are correct that a government system CAN minimize waste, please point out the last time that the US government did ANYTHING where waste was minimized. Also, there has been a groundswell of support for the notion of Medicare for all. I am bringing up a very real concern that makes Medicare for all a bad idea from a practical perspective. I do not believe that the status quo is a workable solution. If we are going to have a universal healthcare system, we must make sure that the economic realities are going to make the system feasible.
You mean the same Medicare that will not be workable as a vehicle between people in need and providers on a nationwide scale? There needs to be serious modification to Medicare for it to actually work. If the modifications are done correctly, with an eye toward not setting up a wasteful monolithic agency, then it can work and it can be a very good solution to the problem. Merely extending Medicare as it stands now to the entire nation is a dumb idea.
Question: please point out the last time that the US government did ANYTHING where waste was minimized. Answer: Medicare
social security is incredibly efficient with minimal overhead cost. senior citizens are least in poverty of all the other age groups.
