Health Care and the US Elections

[Nakosis]

A few big reasons:

1. A system of privatized profits and socialized losses is the worst of both worlds.

2. A lot of the people in the other half not covered by public health insurance are needlessly dying or suffering from chronic conditions.

3. A more systematically-designed system that covers everyone would lower costs and reduce the number of people who fall through the cracks.

Fine by me, I just don't see a willingness for it to happen. Too many folks being supported by the current state of affairs.

 

[fantome profane]

I live in a country where a guy named Tommy Douglas (distant relative of Donald and Keifer Sutherland, as fate would have it) said being sick shouldn't break you and make you poor. It's bad luck, and no one deserves to be destroyed because they're unlucky.

Not even all that distant. You are talking about Donald Sutherland's father-in-law, and Keifer Sutherland's grandfather.

 

[Wirey]

Not even all that distant. You are talking about Donald Sutherland's father-in-law, and Keifer Sutherland's grandfather.

Marriage. Distant. Don't believe me, watch me talk to my wife.

 

[ajay0]

I have a dream. A universal healthcare in the US like in Britain.

Impossible, as the plutocrats there will lament over the loss of valuable revenue and will block any such attempt, as they similarly do with guns and so on. If any complain over this, they will be instantly labelled as socialist/communist and hence non-patriotic and traitorous .

It is not in Indian government's interests too as most of these middle and lower class guys come to India for much more inexpensive healthcare treatment which has resulted in medical tourism revenue of many billion dollars each year for India.

Indian Medical Tourism Industry Opportunities & Forecast to 2034

The medical tourism industry in India is estimated to reach $50,670.5 Mn by 2034, up from $10,362.9 Mn in 2024, with a 17.20% CAGR, according to an FMI.

www.futuremarketinsights.com

The medical tourism industry in India is estimated to be valued at US$ 10,362.9 million in 2024. It is projected to surpass US$ 50,670.5 million by 2034. The industry growth in India is expected to develop at a healthy 17.20% CAGR from 2024 to 2034.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Socialize medicine is not Democracy but Socialism, making it a threat to Democracy. The easiest way to know threats to Democracy is to ask if this is Socialism or Democratic. Free market is closer to Democracy. More choices are more Democratic.

Once Government controls medicine, there will be less services and higher prices. This is not bad, if you are a parasite, since there is no change in cost to you but you still get something for nothing. But someone who has to suddenly pay more for less will not be happy. For one thing, there will be less R&D for future medicines and procedures, since this costs money, has risk and there is no guarantee. Future medicine takes the free market entrepreneurial spirit, to take a risk, with the hope of finding the treasure. Bureaucrats will not take that risk for you, since they serve themselves. No middle or upper level manager will put his career on the line, if he wish to advance in the system. Everything slows down to avoid risk. What we have today, in medicine, will be it; stalled in time.

Government makes it hard to fire anyone, and therefore with a medicine monopoly and total job security, nobody needs to hustle or think in terms of pricing, quality and customer service. I remember my first government contractor job; DOE, and wanting to work fast and being approached to slow down, since I was making the status quo look bad. It was either be black balled; uncooperative technicians, or learn to pace myself and not make waves. This slow down leads to rationing and long lines, since hustling needed for good service is taboo.

If you expect something for nothing, anything is an update, compared to nothing. But if you are used to customers service and better pricing and quality as the way for a competitive market to stay ahead of the competition, you are in for a surprise; night mare.

I am hoping when Trump gets in, he can improve the government job philosophy and efficiency. If the Government had the proper free market attitude, it may actually work. But it will be a disaster, as the Government currently stands; lazy and self serving foot dragging with added red tape, to justify too many union people to ever do the job in a cost effective and innovative way.

The entire developed world, save for the US have some form of universal healthcare and yet democracy lives on in all of those places.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Let’s not ignore that the United States leads the world in medical innovation and technology. There must be some reason for that, and I sometimes wonder if we go too far down the socialist route, if the United States will lose its innovative edge to the detriment of the world.

Lots of medical innovation and technology comes out of countries that have universal healthcare.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Someone has to pay for it. Meaning the taxpayers. So we wouldn't actually be saving any money though the cost maybe spread farther. Generally though if the pool of money for health care is larger, services for health care increase to gather in more of the available pool.

Doctors, nurses, pharmacies are all used to making a pretty good living from the medical industry. You'd be asking the entire industry to take hit in their quality of living. The ACA was supposed to semi socialize medicine but what it ended up doing was driving the costs even higher.

The medical industry sees a large pool of money and they start planing how to get a larger piece of it.

The US is kind of screwed when it comes to health care. The government already spends more than most countries. We need to somehow control the costs first, which no one in the industry is willing to do. And, there is a big medical lobby, a lot of pay outs necessary to bring new drugs to the market. Current politicians benefit from supporting the medical industry.

Not really much will by the people who could change it to change it. Doesn't really matter who you vote for.

Doctors, nurses and pharmacists get along just fine with universal health care. They still get to buy fancy cars and live in big houses in big expensive neighbourhoods and go on expensive vacations several times a year. Their quality of life is pretty great. I don't know where this idea comes from that universal healthcare means that medical personnel have to give up some kind of quality of life and live like peons or something.

 

[Watchmen]

Lots of medical innovation and technology comes out of countries that have universal healthcare.

A fraction of what the US puts out.

 

[Nakosis]

Doctors, nurses and pharmacists get along just fine with universal health care. They still get to buy fancy cars and live in big houses in big expensive neighbourhoods and go on expensive vacations several times a year. Their quality of life is pretty great. I don't know where this idea comes from that universal healthcare means that medical personnel have to give up some kind of quality of life and live like peons or something.

Doctors, nurses and pharmacists aren't the entirety of the health care industry.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Doctors, nurses and pharmacists aren't the entirety of the health care industry.

Yes, I'm aware. I cited the ones listed in your post that I was responding to, plus I threw in "medical personnel" as you can see.

Doctors, nurses and pharmacists get along just fine with universal health care. They still get to buy fancy cars and live in big houses in big expensive neighbourhoods and go on expensive vacations several times a year. Their quality of life is pretty great. I don't know where this idea comes from that universal healthcare means that medical personnel have to give up some kind of quality of life and live like peons or something.


Weird how you avoided the point and focused on that instead ... ?

 

[Pogo]

Doctors, nurses and pharmacists aren't the entirety of the health care industry.

No, there are all the extra administrators and paper-pushers made necessary by our system. If you are lucky enough to have good employer provided health care it seems transparent and efficient, but retire and start dealing with the vagaries of Medicare or deal with trying to sort through the self pay options.

 

[Nakosis]

No, there are all the extra administrators and paper-pushers made necessary by our system. If you are lucky enough to have good employer provided health care it seems transparent and efficient, but retire and start dealing with the vagaries of Medicare or deal with trying to sort through the self pay options.

And I have a relative who makes a very good living selling her specific brand of insurance. She gets flown all over the world by her insurance company to entice these employers. Also, the hospitals take in a lot of the money generated by the medical industry.

Also average salary for a nurse in the UK $35Kto $65K. In Calif $78K to $170K. The problem I saw with the ACA is it did nothing to manage these costs and medical personnel is just the tip of the iceberg. I'm not against universal health care it would just be a lot for the government to handle as health care is currently setup in the US.