I mean, rolling with “how will you pay for it” in 2019. Jesus ****ing Christ. Put Wyatt Koch in every ****ing ad.

So I was thinking the situation is so dire now that maybe you guys should cut your losses and accept the fact that you are fkd, and seek long term change with third party strategy over a really long term (like 25 to 40 years), and accept millions will suffer/die within this time.
Problem is the window for this has long past due to climate change problems.
You guys (and the rest of the world by extent) don't have the luxury anymore to wait 30 years for a change.
It's pretty much do something now or enjoy watching the consequences of disrespecting earth for so long.

edit:natural course is rest of the world will have to get involved somehow and get USA in line with the program.(by any means...)

The US version is literally in the original post, and it's not just that we're 10+ times more populous than the two countries that guy cited, but we're more widely scattered. That has an effect on infrastructure costs when you're building a system to provide everyone access to the same "free" healthcare network. Your claim that Medicare For All would be less expensive than the status quo is preposterous, unless you assume that you'll cut costs through reductions in reimbursement rates. That undeniably comes with problems of its own.

I'm not entirely against the concept of Universal Healthcare. I was merely pointing out the idiocy in claiming it would be less expensive than our current system. You cannot draw any 1:1 comparisons from the USA to existing Universal Healthcare countries. You have to figure out how to apply that policy to a much different framework, while also not dismantling the profit incentives for global medical advancement by telling them they won't be paid for their work.

looooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooool

Fun facts, btw:
- United States: 85 people per square mile
- Sweden: 59 people per square mile
- Norway/Finland: 41 people per square mile
- Canada: 10 people per square mile

INSOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO000000000000000

Hmm, it's almost as if there should be a specialized sort of map to show you exactly how the population is distributed, rather than simply dividing overall population by overall land area.

Inso0,

We have health care. In the United States. It's not a question of whether it's possible to provide health care or not. It's a question of whether insurance companies get a cut or not.

I posted one quite recently! But also, you know the people in the outer reaches of those countries (and they do exist!) are still entitled to get healthcare, right? It's unclear if you're aware!

No, it is very much about whether or not our infrastructure can support Universal Healthcare. Nordic countries (and Canada/Australia) have relatively tiny populations in comparatively confined geographic locations. USA#1 is not all New York and LA. We're more widely scattered and already have issues with medicare recipients having a difficult time finding doctors accepting more patients. We have overcrowded hospitals and a shortage of medical staff.

Now, let's open the floodgates and tell people that all their medical expenses are "free" and see if those problems get any better. Oh, and we're supposedly going to spend LESS money overall on it.


Edit: I will again point out that I'm not a staunch opponent to the concept of Universal Healthcare. Merely pointing out the insanity of claiming it will somehow save us money without any downside or unintended consequences.

We can all post disingenuous maps: Here's one

The only constraint I see you mentioning Inso is population and density. On the population side that works in the US's favor by giving the US better economies of scale. The density issue is a problem but not for M4A vs another system but in subsidizing rural hospitals regardless of the system. Rural hospitals are closing right now because they're dependent on Medicare programs to stay afloat, not on private insurance, and Medicare programs to rural hospitals were reduced.

I'm not sure the floodgate would be as open as you think. I really need to find the study because it stops this Econ 101 thinking but it said the difference between the US and most other healthcare systems isn't utilization, in other words, Americans go to the doctor and get operations at about the same rates as everyone else in the world, but it's the per unit costs that account for most of the difference. If that's true, then forcing a reduction in costs even to being free won't open the floodgates because it being free or not isn't what makes people go or not go to the hospital or doctor. People are going to the doctor when they're sick, Americans just pay more to do it.

Which makes a kind of sense as well. Going to the doctor isn't an enjoyable experience. You miss work, you sit in the waiting room, you get poked and prodded, etc. If you make it cheap, it still sucks.


Sure. The real constraints are on the actual real resources. We need more doctors, nurses, facilities. Those will be strained by increased utilization and there needs to be ways to increase those. What isn't needed are insurance companies, billing departments, administrative bloat in hospitals etc.

Thanks for the support? I don't think that was the intent, but appreciated nonetheless. Remember, we have 325 million people.

One for Canada's 35 million people:




Very few people in the USA currently have to travel 10+ hours to find a hospital capable of treating their slightly unusual ailment. Not true for Canada.

Still not arguing against the concept. Just encouraging you to stop deluding yourself into believing it'll be cheaper. Our supply already doesn't meet demands. What do you think happens when you increase demand further?

One man's bloat is another man's necessity. I am reminded constantly by lefties that companies love cutting workers to boost profits. It's true that if you consolidated all of the healthcare networks into a single organization that you could do away with some duplication of duties, but no amount of medical billing staff cuts are going to make a meaningful dent in overall costs.

So that leaves insurance company profits. How much do you think is there? I can't find the stats right this very second but I recall it being in the 3-4% range.

I just don't know where you think these savings are going to come from. The entire system needs to be overhauled. Wait times would go up. Medical accident/malpractice settlements disappear entirely. Facilities get closed. R&D takes a huge hit. The entire system would need to be fundamentally changed if you expect to keep costs the same or miraculously find a way to lower them.

"Usage rates" going up will make overall healthcare expenditure lower because preventive care is far cheaper than curative care.

Really obvious concept that applies to a bunch of other industries already.

Disaster preparation being an obvious and apt example here.

You don't have to imagine where the savings come from. The cost reduction is from less administrative overhead, less money to providers, and less money to drug companies. Paying them less is not the same thing as not paying them.

This would probably blow my mind as you intended, but "preventive care" is already covered at 100% under nearly all insurance policies because they would also prefer to pay small bills rather than large ones.

What's next on your list?



Well now we've come full circle with Wookie making the same argument as I did in my first post. Yes, you can simply pay everyone less money, but I doubt you'll enjoy the consequences of that decision.

Is preventative care included for free in high-deductible policies, or do you have to pay out of pocket for it until you meet your deductible?

There are probably exceptions, but yes. Again, the insurance companies know they're better off paying for your preventive care visits than the $150,000 hospital bill you racked up while trying to avoid a $150 screening.

So what is the usage that you are so afraid of skyrocketing under UHC then? People will decide to get unnecessary heart transplants left and right?

Yeah, we want to just pay everyone less, but that is not remotely analogous to you just reducing your mortgage payments arbitrarily. That is a stupid analogy.

We know for a fact that lots of countries can and do pay less for health care with better health outcomes. Paying middlemen billions in profits is not essential for quality health outcomes.

The doctors of 2p2 can give you more insight on the types of completely unnecessary visits they get now. Multiply it by some unknown amount once you eliminate the cost barrier to entry.

I did find an example of the language you'll find in most, if not all, HDHP benefits summaries.

https://imgur.com/a/ydyCo1d

Preventive care is not included. You get one "wellness" check a year and it doesn't include basic things like blood work. Ins0 is just straight lying about that.

Can the USA have Universal Health Care of course than can will they never. Its like Gun control of course the USA can have more Gun Control but they never will.

The problem is you have made a system as corrupt as your defense spending. Everyone is in it for the profit . Hospitals, drug companies, insurance companies. The other big problem that we are experiencing in Canada is costs. Population is aging, folks are fatter and more cancers, opiod crisis. All these are huge drains on our systems. So much of our healthcare costs are spent on the last 2 years of a seniors life and the first few months of babies lives. We have advanced so far in medicine but that comes at a cost

Look at our province of Alberta 39.9 % or 20.4 billion $ goes to Healthcare. We don't have for profit hospitals and people pay for their own medication if they do not have a private plan.

https://edmontonjournal.com/news/pol...the-cost-curve

man this forum sure is better now that augie has a safe space for nazis and people who believe noah's ark was a real thing are feeling comfortable enough to give healthcare seminars itt

Where's the cite or ban brigade when you need it?