The fact is; US healthcare sucks

[AggregateDemand]

No it's not. If I get in a car wreck and am un/barely conscious, the ambulance is just going to take me to a hospital to get treated. I wouldn't get to call hospitals around and price-check or anything. I wouldn't get to choose what procedures are and aren't performed on me. I'd just be stuck with the bill no matter what.

That doesn't have anything to do with supply, does it?

[Matty]

Why not? Healthcare (drugs, medicines, routine checkups) is a commodity like any other good. It is a scarce service. It is not unlimited. It is absolutely subject to the same economic laws as other goods.

No it's not. If I get in a car wreck and am un/barely conscious, the ambulance is just going to take me to a hospital to get treated. I wouldn't get to call hospitals around and price-check or anything. I wouldn't get to choose what procedures are and aren't performed on me. I'd just be stuck with the bill no matter what.

In fact, it would be pretty hard to do all the research ahead of time and leave detailed instructions behind because hospitals are very secretive and squirrely with their prices.

You could argue that non-essential physician visits are a free market, but emergency medicine definitely isn't.

Which is why there has always been a private market for catastrophic insurance.

[Matty]

And scarcity is present in any system, any. You cannot just claim "healthcare is a human right", and like magic develop the capabilities to give people care whenever they want. In America, we solve this issue through a price system. (although it is often distorted by gov't), in other systems the rationing is determined by a government that determines who gets the care, what kind of care is given, and where priority is needed.

[Illuminati Blood Drinker]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

In other news, grass is green, Pope Francis adheres to the Catholic faith, and cows produce milk.

[memphis]

It's almost as if our healthcare system were designed to maximize profits and minimize care

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

Our health system is great so long as you're not poor.

[Badger]

so basically you're saying you want death panels?

If public care then death panels.

It's not an option. Rationing is a necessity and both parties have borrowed money, raised taxes, and cut vital spending for populist programs to pretend that rationing (death panels) are not required. If people don't like it, they should request vouchers so they can get healthcare tailored to their own health issues.

Wow. Your suckitude on this issue increases expotentially woth every post.

[Matty]

Our health system is great so long as you're not poor.

Here's one issue, though. The poor tend to all live in the same immediate area as one another in any given area, city, etc. These areas tend to be rundown and crime is an issue. The quality of care they would receive from a government run healthcare clinic would probably mirror the overall standard of living of the area itself.

Not saying it is necessarily bad, but an American "NHS" would probably be two tiered like our public school system. The bad areas have the bad schools, and the good areas have the superb schools.

[AggregateDemand]

Wow. Your suckitude on this issue increases expotentially woth every post.

You're uninformed and barely lucid. I'm not sure anyone assigns weight to your arcane political evaluations.

Public care requires rationing. It happens in all virtually all nations with a public care system. The US imagines it's rich enough to pay a 300% premium for senior care that doesn't even extend life expectancy or quality of life. It's unapologetic senility at its worst, and it costs the youngs their socioeconomic freedom.

If that's the America you want, vote Democrat. They've been selling this brokedown palace since 1965.

[Deus Naturae]

so basically you're saying you want death panels?

If public care then death panels.

It's not an option. Rationing is a necessity and both parties have borrowed money, raised taxes, and cut vital spending for populist programs to pretend that rationing (death panels) are not required. If people don't like it, they should request vouchers so they can get healthcare tailored to their own health issues.

Wow. Your suckitude on this issue increases expotentially woth every post.

Not really that strange. Isn't AG's position the same as Paul Krugman's?

[AggregateDemand]

Not really that strange. Isn't AG's position the same as Paul Krugman's?

Krugman is an advocate for public systems, including nationalized retirement. I'm simply explaining the consequences of public systems.

[dmmidmi]

I wish reform was geared more towards increasing the supply, rather than demand, for healthcare.

And how do you propose that, in any sort of meaningful way?

If we want to increase the "supply" of health care, we need to increase the number of doctors and nurses we train. If we want to increase the number of doctors and nurses we train, we need to increase the number of medical schools/nursing schools that exist. If we want to do that, we need to increase the number of physicians/nurses available to teach, residencies, and clinical rotation opportunities. It's not possible to simply increase enrollment at our current medical schools and schools of nursing, and expect that to have any sort of meaningful effect.

If you know how to address all of these, I'd love to hear it.

By the way, all of this will cost hundreds of millions (if not billions) of dollars. Where's it coming from?

It's almost as if our healthcare system were designed to maximize profits and minimize care

That is due in large part to the fact that health care providers are reimbursed based on the care they deliver--not patient outcomes.

[afleitch]

You do realise that in many nations with national healthcare systems like the UK, private healthcare and health insurance still exist right? You realise that the two often pool and share resources? (which some oppose for understandable reasons) and that private healthcare is generally cheaper in comparison to many US plans on the basis that the private system is having to compete with a larger, free service that in it's dealing with pharmaceutical companies and other specialists help drive the price down for everyone else.

[Badger]

so basically you're saying you want death panels?

If public care then death panels.

It's not an option. Rationing is a necessity and both parties have borrowed money, raised taxes, and cut vital spending for populist programs to pretend that rationing (death panels) are not required. If people don't like it, they should request vouchers so they can get healthcare tailored to their own health issues.

Wow. Your suckitude on this issue increases expotentially woth every post.

Not really that strange. Isn't AG's position the same as Paul Krugman's?

1) Who says I would defend Paul Krugman? There's a middle ground between him and those who believe public heatlth care spending invariably leads to death panels and the like.

2) To answer your question, I don't believe so.

[AggregateDemand]

And how do you propose that, in any sort of meaningful way?

My maternal grandmother became a triage specialist on Anzio beachhead. She worked in triage throughout her life after she retired from the service.

There would be millions more like her, if we hadn't cut military spending by 50% and turned the savings into ineffective handouts.

[dmmidmi]

And how do you propose that, in any sort of meaningful way?

My maternal grandmother became a triage specialist on Anzio beachhead. She worked in triage throughout her life after she retired from the service.

There would be millions more like her, if we hadn't cut military spending by 50% and turned the savings into ineffective handouts.

I'm not sure I follow the logic--the best way to increase the number of health professionals we have is to go to war?

[AggregateDemand]

I'm not sure I follow the logic--the best way to increase the number of health professionals we have is to go to war?

Obviously that's what I'm saying. The best way to increase the supply of healthcare workers so we can save more American lives is to start WWIII.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

You do realise that in many nations with national healthcare systems like the UK, private healthcare and health insurance still exist right? You realise that the two often pool and share resources? (which some oppose for understandable reasons) and that private healthcare is generally cheaper in comparison to many US plans on the basis that the private system is having to compete with a larger, free service that in it's dealing with pharmaceutical companies and other specialists help drive the price down for everyone else.

Note that this commentary is being largely ignored.

It's interesting that the point made about "well, the issue is access" was so quickly brushed aside. The fundamental issue is access, with no or limited access, your health outcomes are f**ked. Government "interference" does distort the system, but in a positive way for consumers, as Afleitch points out - private insurance cannot be as ridiculously expensive here or in the UK as it is in the US, as there's a national insurance system which (nearly) everyone contributes to. Health outcomes in all of these countries are generally the best in systems with universal/socialised/public healthcare, because access is virtually guaranteed.

Now, you can't control what people do to themselves... which is part of the reason why the UK health outcomes are among the worst in Europe - but the US reaction to greater access, as it is to many things from the right, "don't expand access, because that could hurt my outcomes" without realising that expanding the public system and putting in place stricter price controls - does reign in costs and increases health outcomes... because more people have access to quality care - which guess what? improves overall outcomes for people.

The discussions about public health long-term sustainability are largely over-blown and aren't backed up by any serious analysis. 

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

There is more to access than just cost to the consumer.  Just ask the VA.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

There is more to access than just cost to the consumer.  Just ask the VA.

Indeed.

[Deus Naturae]

Expanding access doesn't have to mean socialization or increased government involvement. It's ridiculous that in a country with countless regulations that restrict the supply of health care and insurance, everybody acts like the only way to expand access to care is impose even more regulations and socialize health care to an even greater extent that it already is. We could easily expand access by eliminating health insurance mandates that criminalize cheaper, catastrophic plans, CON licensing schemes and other regulations that prevent new hospitals from entering the market and current hospitals from expanding, medical school accreditation schemes that increase the cost of medical education and limits on the amount of physicians that may be licensed which artificially increase physicians fees (and thus health care prices) and result in an insufficient number of doctors to meet consumer demand. Plus, you've got a very restrictive process for prescription drug approval that limits competition and prevents life-saving medicines from hitting the market, and even once they do, there's a monopolistic patent system that ensures that the price of those medicines remains high. Why none of this ever gets discussed by members of either major party when it comes to increasing access to health care is beyond me.

[Matty]

The cost of care in this country would plummet rapidly if we abolished licensing laws for doctors and other health providers.

[AggregateDemand]

Now, you can't control what people do to themselves... which is part of the reason why the UK health outcomes are among the worst in Europe - but the US reaction to greater access, as it is to many things from the right, "don't expand access, because that could hurt my outcomes" without realising that expanding the public system and putting in place stricter price controls - does reign in costs and increases health outcomes... because more people have access to quality care - which guess what? improves overall outcomes for people.

Democrats believe in expanding public access, but they can't defeat AARP or the medical lobbyists so they spend money we don't have to expand access. Nothing changes. Republicans don't believe in expanding public access. Instead, they want to improve access to the private sector by reforming our state-directed private insurance.

What is the prognosis for expanding public care? Basically zero, and our government's track record of incompetence makes change unlikely.

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

The cost of care in this country would plummet rapidly if we abolished licensing laws for doctors and other health providers.

...

[ingemann]

The cost of care in this country would plummet rapidly if we abolished licensing laws for doctors and other health providers.

Yes likely it would, it's still the worst idea I have heard in a while.