Is Obamacare a slur?

Quote: Gandler

Percent of GDP does not equal percent the average American will be paying. I would guess more in the 12-15% range. However, even at 20%, it is still a good deal. And, the GDP will go down with a universal system, because the large portion of the medical industry that does nothing but bill and debate with insurance companies will disappear, and the prices of virtually everything will decrease because a single power will set all of the prices (as happens with every country that adopts universal healthcare.)

It mostly does because in the end GDP is national income so whatever % of that the sector is is what you have to pay. And no, it will not be more efficient. The insurance company paper pushers will be replaced by government paper pushers.

Quote:

I do not buy the longer wait times. VA has shorter wait times than private. For primary care (routine doctor visits) our wait times are actually drastically longer than many countries with universal coverage (yes even the UK and Canada.) Yes for specialists, our wait times are shorter than some Though Canada is not always the best comparison because it is not really a national healthcare system, every providence (their version of States,) basically manages it locally, so there is not as much consistency as a truly national system.

A government system will mean less supply. Less supply means longer wait times. The VA currently has the luxury of less demand year after year, so they had better have shorter wait times. That will not happen under a universal system.

Quote:

We are paying a lot of money, for not a lot of stuff, (and still have to pay more every time we use our membership so to speak.) The whole system is absurd. Take my 20% and give me VA equivalent care anywhere in the U.S. with no questions asked.

No, we are paying for more and more stuff. We have more new procedures every year. More new tech. And an aging population which means more demand. And again, you say "no questions asked." You are not going to get to just have whatever procedure you want. You will get some paper pusher saying if you can have it or not, no recourse.

Driverless cars could revolutionize the medical and the injury lawsuit industry if they significantly reduce accidents. Alos the ability to do much of your medical appointment from home also should help. There's a lot of in office medical screening still going on, that could be done remotely.

Quote:

Vehicle accidents significantly impact medical costs in the United States. In 2019, the economic cost of injuries, including motor vehicle crashes, was estimated at $4.2 trillion1. This figure includes $327 billion in medical care costs1. Additionally, in 2017, medical care costs and productivity losses associated with crash injuries and deaths exceeded $75 billion2.

Quote: AZDuffman

It mostly does because in the end GDP is national income so whatever % of that the sector is is what you have to pay. And no, it will not be more efficient. The insurance company paper pushers will be replaced by government paper pushers.

Yes, but the % America spends on healthcare will go down with a universal system. Even some of the more expensive National models like UK spend half of us (and if designed right, a system can easily be made more efficient.) We spend so much because the prices are so high.

It will be more efficient because there will be one decision maker instead of 1k-2k of insurance companies having different rules, rates, etc..... all fighting each other.

Quote: AZDuffman

A government system will mean less supply. Less supply means longer wait times. The VA currently has the luxury of less demand year after year, so they had better have shorter wait times. That will not happen under a universal system.

It may or may not, supply is impossible to predict until the system exists, it can easily have more. My personal guess, is it would have more even supply, meaning care geographically spread out in a more fair method, so some cities will have less, and some remote regions will have more than they could fathom.

Quote: AZDuffman

No, we are paying for more and more stuff. We have more new procedures every year. More new tech. And an aging population which means more demand. And again, you say "no questions asked." You are not going to get to just have whatever procedure you want. You will get some paper pusher saying if you can have it or not, no recourse.

We already have that. Have you been denied by insurance before? Sure, you can dispute and have various recourse, but this takes time (years sometime,) if you desperately need something, they have the final say. National systems have recourse systems, there is not a single decision with zero appeal, sure it takes time, but less so than our system.


To be clear, I am not even necessarily advocating a National System (though I am open minded.) My gut feeling is a universal healthcare like Medicare for all would accomplish this without the need to build thousands of government hospitals and clinics from scratch. Just nationalize the insurance industry.

Quote: Gandler

Yes, but the % America spends on healthcare will go down with a universal system. Even some of the more expensive National models like UK spend half of us (and if designed right, a system can easily be made more efficient.) We spend so much because the prices are so high.

It will be more efficient because there will be one decision maker instead of 1k-2k of insurance companies having different rules, rates, etc..... all fighting each other.

There is zero reason to believe what we spend will go down. There is more reason to believe it would go up as government is historically more inefficient than private enterprise. Government has zero incentive to be more efficient. But it does tend to emulate the Holy Roman Empire with lots of little fiefdoms bureaucrats protect to keep themselves in comfortable living.

Quote:

It may or may not, supply is impossible to predict until the system exists, it can easily have more. My personal guess, is it would have more even supply, meaning care geographically spread out in a more fair method, so some cities will have less, and some remote regions will have more than they could fathom.

Government dictating supply is a bad thing. You get a system like the USSR where the joke was the government was planning a fancy rail system so everyone could get to Moscow where the shops were vs. just having shops in every town.

Quote:

To be clear, I am not even necessarily advocating a National System (though I am open minded.) My gut feeling is a universal healthcare like Medicare for all would accomplish this without the need to build thousands of government hospitals and clinics from scratch. Just nationalize the insurance industry.

Again, you seem to think a nationalized system means you will be able to drive up, get all the services you need, pay nominal to nothing, and all will be rainbows and unicorns. Reality us systems like Canada are great.....unless you get sick or injured. Then it all breaks down.

Quote: AZDuffman

There is zero reason to believe what we spend will go down. There is more reason to believe it would go up as government is historically more inefficient than private enterprise. Government has zero incentive to be more efficient. But it does tend to emulate the Holy Roman Empire with lots of little fiefdoms bureaucrats protect to keep themselves in comfortable living.



Government dictating supply is a bad thing. You get a system like the USSR where the joke was the government was planning a fancy rail system so everyone could get to Moscow where the shops were vs. just having shops in every town.




Again, you seem to think a nationalized system means you will be able to drive up, get all the services you need, pay nominal to nothing, and all will be rainbows and unicorns. Reality us systems like Canada are great.....unless you get sick or injured. Then it all breaks down.

Canada has a higher DALY and QALY measures than the US, a higher life expectancy, a higher healthy life expectancy and spend less per capita than the US. I could go on. BUt, I;ll just as this:

What's AZDuffman's Healthcare plan? Or is he just good at finding problems, but not solving them?

Quote: GenoDRPh

Canada has a higher DALY and QALY measures than the US, a higher life expectancy, a higher healthy life expectancy and spend less per capita than the US. I could go on. BUt, I;ll just as this:

What's AZDuffman's Healthcare plan? Or is he just good at finding problems, but not solving them?

The measurements you cite really say nothing about their system. Flthat is the problem. Take life expectancy. The USA has a population that leads higher risk lives. Military alone could be skewing that. Canada’s population is more geographically centralized. Canada doesn’t s not have 10 million illegal aliens bringing who knows what in.

The USA does not need a “plan.” We do need a few things. First is people to be realistic about what healthcare costs. People whine about a $50 cost to visit a doctor when it will cost twice that to have your car looked at. We also must look at what drives you be costs. We do transplants like clockwork but you think that’s free?

If I had to put forth actually plan I’d change how insurance works. High deductible plan and HSAs for basic stuff. Say to $5000. Then insurance for say $5000 to $100000. Above that some kids be of optional catastrophic coverage. Buy that or not as you like. I get sick enough to need a transplant let me die. Others might prefer to pay. Better than socialized medicine where we all stay sick.

Quote: AZDuffman

If I had to put forth actually plan I’d change how insurance works. High deductible plan and HSAs for basic stuff. Say to $5000. Then insurance for say $5000 to $100000. Above that some kids be of optional catastrophic coverage. Buy that or not as you like. I get sick enough to need a transplant let me die. Others might prefer to pay. Better than socialized medicine where we all stay sick.

I had a back surgery that cost around $300,000. My insurance covered most of the costs I think I only had to pay around $28,000 out of pocket.

Quote: DRich

I had a back surgery that cost around $300,000. My insurance covered most of the costs I think I only had to pay around $28,000 out of pocket.

The Duffplan: Too old, too sick or too poor? Too bad!

Waiting times:

Canada: 'In 2023, Canada's median waiting time between a General practitioner (GP) referral to a specialist was 14.6 weeks.'

UK: 'The current median wait time is 14.5 weeks.'

Ireland: 'Public patients waited an average of 7½ months to see a consultant last year, more than two months less than in the previous year,'

Italy: Up to ten months. 'The average waiting times to see a doctor in Italy will largely depend on the specialty, but you can expect waiting times of several months. For example, a neurological visit would take around ten months, while for an eye examination, you would have to wait eight months.'

Quote: GenoDRPh

The Duffplan: Too old, too sick or too poor? Too bad!

Sorry, that is the Obama plan. The death panels!