Let's stop right there. I don't know how many times I need to repeat this. I never said anything about whether our current system is the best, whether we should have universal health care or not, whether employers should subsidize health care, etc.

You, case closed, and Phil are inferring a whole bunch of things that I never have said. So for completeness sake let me recap the points I have made.

1. In our current system, many people just don't take saving for health care as seriously as they should. This is irrational. If there are a large number of people that are being bankrupted by < 10K bills, I think a significant portion of them could have avoided it if they made saving for health care a priority. But people just don't think this way (at least most don't).

I do admit (as I always have), that many of these people, under our current system, could not have avoided bankruptcy even if they saved every penny for health care.

2. No system covers everyone for everything.

3. I think that for a low but significant number of conditions, a patient will receive better care in the US than they would in a rich UHC care country.


Here's what I have not said,

1. On balance, our system is better than UHC.
2. People should be able to avoid medical bankruptcy in the US in all cases.
3. Our system is better than UHC at avoiding medical bankruptcy.

Melkerson,

If that's what you're saying then you have not said anything at all. You've made some bad claims that you cannot back up at all. Where do you get the idea that people don't take healthcare seriously? Honestly, how old are you?

Well I do, and you do, but I genuinely believe there are some people who look at the Mexico stats posted in this thread and truly believe that if every American had what the the average Mexican has, we'd probably be just as well off.

I agree that comparing the US to wealthier UHC countries is more useful. But that's not what I was responding to at the time.

I am a physician in my late 30s and I have practiced in the United States for my entire career.

Oh, so you have purchased health insurance for yourself and have worked in the industry. I still don't see how you think that it possible for people who can be bankrupted by a 10k medical bill could have possibly saved the money required to pay for those bills when they must have already been in financial dire straights. You realize that for a lot of people 10k represents a very significant portion of their yearly income?

I don't see how you think it is impossible. It's not possible for everyone avoid bankruptcy from an <10K bill, but it is possible for some. Surely you can see that. Many times I have seen patients prioritize non-essential spending over spending on medical bills. It happens a lot.

So, you just want people to display better ability than they are displaying right now. You want this to happen based on no research into an ability to achieve the results you want. I am still unsure what type of system you would prefer over the US free market system or UHC. Personally I think UHC is the best system that exists right now. Your "just save more" theory does not seem too practical or even backed up with your own research.

I'm not even saying I want anything. I was just making an observation.

I agree. It's not fair to Mexico!

Maybe healthcare execs aren't entitled and shouldn't receive 8 figure retirement pensions. Maybe prescription drugs shouldn't remain $100+/mth for life. There must be a way the lower the cost of healthcare. This government isn't even trying to find a way to lower healthcare cost.

Uh... yes. I guess you missed the "damning indictment of our health care system" line.

Funny, but it's rare to hear anyone even mention the relationship between drugs/surgeries and life expectancy or quality. You'd think this would be at the forefront of the medical decision making process. Many people are overtreated for little or no gain to the length or quality of their life.

So noting that you can't change this and make people start saving, even though you freely admit that in a lot of cases it wouldn't help anyways, why not adopt a system where nobody has to go bankrupt?

I'll bet the VA does, or at least ranks very highly.

Yeah, which patient is that? Some dude who works in a car wash, or Bill Gates?

That's fair. Serious problems that permeate the entire corporate culture in America. That's something we have to work on as well. The price controls through a lack of negotiating power are probably product of that.

I have never said we shouldn't. But obviously bankruptcy avoidance is only one of many issues to consider when designing a health care system. I don't have the time or desire to discuss them all.

No, it doesn't. It covers many things, if that's what you mean by "ranks very highly". But my statement is still true: No system covers everyone for everything.

If you were following the context in which my posts were made (and it's not clear that you were), I was talking about a patient with coverage in the United States vs a patient with coverage in a rich UHC country. So your question is essentially a non sequitur.

Who will receive better care in the US? what percentage in the US would receive better care compared to comparable 1st world countries with UHC? What percentage receives worst care because they aren't covered/or were denied coverage they thought they had and can't afford it without?

I really doubt wealthy people from france/germany/england/canada/japan, ect, wouldn't be able to receive high end treatments(much better care comparable to US) for conditions (X) that you are worried those with considerable means in the US will somehow miss out on if we adopt UHC like rest of 1st world countries.

This is getting tiresome.

If you were paying attention, I made a very similar point myself in post 110.:

"In many countries w/ universal health care, there are many expensive treatments that the system just doesn't cover. But since almost no one has access to them it's less noticeable.

Here, at least some people (i.e., those with means) have access to such treatments. So that's a good thing. But it is balanced, and according to most, outweighed by those who can't even get access to the inferior treatments."

So I'm not sure what you're trying to argue with. Probably something you think I said that I actually didn't say. Seems to be a common problem in this thread.

I don't even know where to begin here, so I won't even try. Please just reread my post 124 for the following

1. Explanation of my position on certain conditions (for patients w/ coverage) being treated better in the US vs rich UHC countries.
2. Explanation of why I'm not going provide and support of bunch of examples of such conditions.

The point is that I'd like you to name just one condition for your (X) that your average/median person in a 1st world country with UHC wouldn't get access to, but your average "covered" person in the US would. Because I'm not doubting that such better treatments for (X) exists, just that it seems likely that such a higher end rarer treatment would lead to a lot of "insured" people in the US probably not getting covered for it either . So if it's just the case that the wealthiest in the US with the very best coverage have access, this in practice isn't even much of a benefit as I'd imagine the wealthier in those other 1st world UHC also would have the means to get it as well or travel to get it, and buy extra instance on top or pay out of pocket, which would make your point kind of wash as your main example of our system being preferable to other 1st world UHC systems.

So to see how valid a point it is, it would help to have an example so we can see what percentage of people in the US would have access to a treatment that the average person in comparable UHC country wouldn't.

also in such an example it would make sense not to count those who have coverage through government jobs and just count private sector (kind lol to use those fortunate enough to have government provided coverage as an example of our HC systems access to some forms of "better care" vs comparable UHC countries).

So spot on. +1

We don't need price controls. Just change the IP laws. After a drug has made a billion dollars, allow generics to compete.

This is because of the health insurance model. If individuals were required to pay full fare for all medications they would not be asking for every new drug on the market. They would even be more willing to purchase generics.

NOT a headline from The Onion:

"Man in Stable Condition After $44 Million Hospital Bill"

Did you even read the article? That has nothing to do with health care costs. The $44 million wasn't based on services provided just a typo.

Yes, I read it. I also have a sense of humor. A warped one perhaps, but at least I have one.