Health Insurance is the Problem, Not The Answer

[Indeependent]

America is still the wealthiest country with a couple of exceptions like Singapore. Every industrial country has national health insurance but we can't afford it say the repubs? Why not?

Ahem
Richest Countries in the World

That list must be incorrect as it lists way too many Socialist cess-pools.

 

[Rshermr]

Yeah, we have market failure layered on market failure. If our system was so great, surely the rest of OECD nations would emulate it? We don't even have better health care outcomes than the French, Italians, Germans, Japanese, Koreans, etc. Basically, if you're an OECD country, you have a more efficient health care system.

I agree that the aca was a crap answer to the problem. But I also believe it was the best we were likely to get. And, based on what I have seen so far from a relative's experience, it is an improvement, at least for most.

But what I most hope for is single payer. Medicare for all would be just fine with me. But we would have lost that battle. Health insurance companies own too many politicians and spend hundreds of millions that would have sidelined single payer, in my opinion.

What I most like about the aca is that it is a LAW THAT CAN BE MODIFIED. People are going to like a lot of the ACA, and the cons know it.

It's a step in the right direction, but I just don't like that the health insurance industry was involved in crafting the bill, etc.

I view health care like national defense: it should be a priority. Human capital may be even MORE important. Our national defense is basically single payer. The government pays private firms to build bombs, missiles, tanks, submarines, etc. I think healthcare should be done the same way. Medicare is way MORE efficient than any private insurer. We'd literally think it was ridiculous if we had to purchase "national defense insurance".

I completely agree. When the law was being defined, with both repubs and dems involved in the discussions, we saw the leading dems walking away from single payer. If you then looked at where the bucks were coming from to pay those same politicians, why....SURPRISE. It was from the private health care industry. Primarily from insurance companies.

What a shock. And they paid hundreds of millions lying about the subject in order to gain voter support. I suspect that it will only change in the same way ss support changed. Remember, support for ss was nip and tuck, until it was implemented for a while. Then, suddenly, most politicians lined up behind it. And today, VERY, VERY few politicians try to take on ss. Because they prefer being reelected.

So today you have the repub party en mas trying to vote out the aca. Which, of cource, is just them trying to do something to waste time. Because it will not happen. Give it five years. See what happened. Private insurance in the US is the most expensive system in the world. People will have a vary hard time going back to unregulated private insurance. So, in my mind, a single payer option is next.

While a single payer option is not ideal, it was tried in many nations and won because it worked best for the public. Now, while most if not all nations still have private insurance options, none except in Switzerland, is prevalent. And in Switzerland the private insurance is completely regulated non profit insurance.

 

[Rshermr]

Maybe. But that's not what we got. Problem compounded.

Yeah, we have market failure layered on market failure. If our system was so great, surely the rest of OECD nations would emulate it? We don't even have better health care outcomes than the French, Italians, Germans, Japanese, Koreans, etc. Basically, if you're an OECD country, you have a more efficient health care system.

That's demonstrably false. You are an ill informed boob. My only mistake was peeking at your post after I put you on iggy.

Says the con boob, rabbi. Without any proof, as usual. Because he has none. Just the need to push the conservative agenda. And he does not need the truth, because he could care less. Just a con boob. And a TOTAL waste of time, unless you just like opinion.
Here. Look at the numbers, and you will see why tools like rabbi are liars.
Healthcare spending around the world, country by country | News | theguardian.com

 

[Rshermr]

I see big pharma a part of the problem. Why can we not just stick it right to them? I would love to see it. They charge such massive prices for their bloody pills half of which probably aren't worth the bottle they are put in. And they continue to get away with it.

You just want to stick it to someone who is more successful. Fuck that.

Drugs are very expensive to bring to market, thanks in no small part to the FDA. And once they are on the market, companies have a short window to recoup all the money they put into development, plus pay for all the other drugs that didnt make it. The patent period used to be 7 years and was shortened, raising prices all over.
Can you name the last major drug developed in Europe or Canada?

And the beat goes on. Just Rabbi trying again to pass the Koch test. Which is, of course, if it is good for the koch brothers and corporations, it is good. If it is good for the population, and the middle class, it does not matter.

More than half of the drugs developed in the world are from corporations outside of the US.
"the US leads in the discovery of approved drugs, by a wide margin (118 out of the 252 drugs)."
Where Drugs Come From: By Country. In the Pipeline:

And, the idea that Pharma is hurting in any way just does not pass the giggle test. Only a true conservative tool would try to float that lie:
" the pharmaceutical industry continued its reign as the most profitable industry in the annual Fortune 500 list.
While the overall profits of Fortune 500 companies declined by 53 percent – the second deepest
dive in profits the Fortune 500 has taken in its 47 years – the top 10 U.S. drug makers increased
profits by 33 percent."

So we pay more than any country in the world for health care. And Pharma is the most profitable industry in the world. And yes, Rabbi is among the biggest liars in the world.

 

[Rshermr]

Yeah, we have market failure layered on market failure. If our system was so great, surely the rest of OECD nations would emulate it? We don't even have better health care outcomes than the French, Italians, Germans, Japanese, Koreans, etc. Basically, if you're an OECD country, you have a more efficient health care system.

I agree that the aca was a crap answer to the problem. But I also believe it was the best we were likely to get. And, based on what I have seen so far from a relative's experience, it is an improvement, at least for most.

But what I most hope for is single payer. Medicare for all would be just fine with me. But we would have lost that battle. Health insurance companies own too many politicians and spend hundreds of millions that would have sidelined single payer, in my opinion.

What I most like about the aca is that it is a LAW THAT CAN BE MODIFIED. People are going to like a lot of the ACA, and the cons know it.

Wait, so you judge that it was an improvement for most people based on one case of your relative's experience?
How does that work?

I did not judge it by one single case. Did I say that I judged it by one case??? Why, no, I did not. I just provided one case.
Perhaps you can show me a specific case where an insured person is being hurt by aca. You have not.

 

[Rshermr]

Yeah, we have market failure layered on market failure. If our system was so great, surely the rest of OECD nations would emulate it? We don't even have better health care outcomes than the French, Italians, Germans, Japanese, Koreans, etc. Basically, if you're an OECD country, you have a more efficient health care system.

I agree that the aca was a crap answer to the problem. But I also believe it was the best we were likely to get. And, based on what I have seen so far from a relative's experience, it is an improvement, at least for most.

But what I most hope for is single payer. Medicare for all would be just fine with me. But we would have lost that battle. Health insurance companies own too many politicians and spend hundreds of millions that would have sidelined single payer, in my opinion.

What I most like about the aca is that it is a LAW THAT CAN BE MODIFIED. People are going to like a lot of the ACA, and the cons know it.

People like a lot of the effects of heroine. But I wouldn't want my kids strung out on it.

Were you trying to win the stupidest post award. I vote for YOU.

 

[The Rabbi]

America is still the wealthiest country with a couple of exceptions like Singapore. Every industrial country has national health insurance but we can't afford it say the repubs? Why not?

Ahem
Richest Countries in the World

That list must be incorrect as it lists way too many Socialist cess-pools.

 

[Kimura]

Each country was ranked on three criteria: life expectancy (weighted 60%), relative per capita cost of health care (30%); and absolute per capita cost of health care (10%). Countries were scored on each criterion and the scores were weighted and summed to obtain their efficiency scores. Relative cost is health cost per capita as a percentage of GDP per capita. Absolute cost is total health expenditure, which covers preventive and curative health services, family planning, nutrition activities and emergency aid. Included were countries with populations of at least five million, GDP per capita of at least $5,000 and life expectancy of at least 70 years.

The Most Efficient Health Care Systems In The World (INFOGRAPHICS)

&

Most Efficient Health Care: Countries - Bloomberg

 

[The Rabbi]

Each country was ranked on three criteria: life expectancy (weighted 60%), relative per capita cost of health care (30%); and absolute per capita cost of health care (10%). Countries were scored on each criterion and the scores were weighted and summed to obtain their efficiency scores. Relative cost is health cost per capita as a percentage of GDP per capita. Absolute cost is total health expenditure, which covers preventive and curative health services, family planning, nutrition activities and emergency aid. Included were countries with populations of at least five million, GDP per capita of at least $5,000 and life expectancy of at least 70 years.

The Most Efficient Health Care Systems In The World (INFOGRAPHICS)

&

Most Efficient Health Care: Countries - Bloomberg

You understand that doesnt support your point, right?

 

[Rshermr]

Each country was ranked on three criteria: life expectancy (weighted 60%), relative per capita cost of health care (30%); and absolute per capita cost of health care (10%). Countries were scored on each criterion and the scores were weighted and summed to obtain their efficiency scores. Relative cost is health cost per capita as a percentage of GDP per capita. Absolute cost is total health expenditure, which covers preventive and curative health services, family planning, nutrition activities and emergency aid. Included were countries with populations of at least five million, GDP per capita of at least $5,000 and life expectancy of at least 70 years.

The Most Efficient Health Care Systems In The World (INFOGRAPHICS)

&

Most Efficient Health Care: Countries - Bloomberg

You understand that doesnt support your point, right?

I see you are confused again, Rabbi. What it does is, quite simply, prove that your points about health care are wrong. Funny how that is always the case.

 

[The Rabbi]

The Most Efficient Health Care Systems In The World (INFOGRAPHICS)

&

Most Efficient Health Care: Countries - Bloomberg

You understand that doesnt support your point, right?

I see you are confused again, Rabbi. What it does is, quite simply, prove that your points about health care are wrong. Funny how that is always the case.

You're the one confused. Because like most people with inferior intelligence you cannot read a sentence and draw reasonable conclusions from it.

 

[Rozman]

Why was it necessary to screw over so many people that had insurance,all the doctors who now lost their
patients,doctors giving up their practice,more people have been dumped from their plans then have signed up.

And the Libs see all this as a good thing.

Have people gone crazy.

 

[dblack]

Why was it necessary to screw over so many people that had insurance,all the doctors who now lost their
patients,doctors giving up their practice,more people have been dumped from their plans then have signed up.

And the Libs see all this as a good thing.

Have people gone crazy.

Pretty much, yeah. Everybody wants something for nothing, and they'll vote for any shyster who promises it to them.

 

[Rshermr]

Why was it necessary to screw over so many people that had insurance,all the doctors who now lost their
patients,doctors giving up their practice,more people have been dumped from their plans then have signed up.

And the Libs see all this as a good thing.

Have people gone crazy.

Sorry. You are simply wrong. You need proof of your contentions, but have none. Which makes you a complete waste of time.

 

[Rshermr]

Why was it necessary to screw over so many people that had insurance,all the doctors who now lost their
patients,doctors giving up their practice,more people have been dumped from their plans then have signed up.

And the Libs see all this as a good thing.

Have people gone crazy.

Pretty much, yeah. Everybody wants something for nothing, and they'll vote for any shyster who promises it to them.

So, you are of the opinion that it is better to have several million uninsured that either do not get treatment and die, or more commonly go to the emergency room and WE pay for their treatment at the MOST EXPENSIVE rates possible.

Really smart, me boy. Try getting some actual impartial information. And while at it, pull your head out of your ass.

 

[dblack]

Why was it necessary to screw over so many people that had insurance,all the doctors who now lost their
patients,doctors giving up their practice,more people have been dumped from their plans then have signed up.

And the Libs see all this as a good thing.

Have people gone crazy.

Pretty much, yeah. Everybody wants something for nothing, and they'll vote for any shyster who promises it to them.

So, you are of the opinion that it is better to have several million uninsured that either do not get treatment and die, or more commonly go to the emergency room and WE pay for their treatment at the MOST EXPENSIVE rates possible.

Really smart, me boy. Try getting some actual impartial information. And while at it, pull your head out of your ass.

That's a pretty silly strawman you're building there. Have you considered a carrot for the nose?

 

[Kimura]

 

[The Rabbi]

Another idiot who can't read a chart.

 

[Kimura]

Another idiot who can't read a chart.

I can read.

Here's some data you might be interested in:

OECD Stat Extracts

 

[Rshermr]

Pretty much, yeah. Everybody wants something for nothing, and they'll vote for any shyster who promises it to them.

So, you are of the opinion that it is better to have several million uninsured that either do not get treatment and die, or more commonly go to the emergency room and WE pay for their treatment at the MOST EXPENSIVE rates possible.

Really smart, me boy. Try getting some actual impartial information. And while at it, pull your head out of your ass.

That's a pretty silly strawman you're building there. Have you considered a carrot for the nose?

Got it. You HAVE no impartial information. As I thought.