President Trump

[nosuchreality]

I like what I see so far from the Australian system. 

UK and Canada aren't that great.  We have uncles in Canada that have been waiting for years for care.  Same in the UK.  This is care they would get in the US immediately.  Also have had close relatives die waiting for care in the UK.  It's not all green on the other side.  I still do support universal health care, but lets not kid ourselves.  If you are insured in the US, you might be better off (other than the ridiculous premium price).

Bringing up our current medicare doesn't quite count because it's currently part of a very hybrid system.

The UK is lierally building or just built their first Proton therapy center for cancer.  Previously if you could successfully argue for it and prove medical need, you would have been sent to the USA. 

Isn't the simplest solution to modify the Medicare rules so that the Government can offer medicare as insurance at cost in all markets (cost in thr sub-50 crowd) and then like ACA, cap the cost of the premium for people at 10% of their income?

 

[Irvinecommuter]

I like what I see so far from the Australian system. 

UK and Canada aren't that great.  We have uncles in Canada that have been waiting for years for care.  Same in the UK.  This is care they would get in the US immediately.  Also have had close relatives die waiting for care in the UK.  It's not all green on the other side.  I still do support universal health care, but lets not kid ourselves.  If you are insured in the US, you might be better off (other than the ridiculous premium price).

Bringing up our current medicare doesn't quite count because it's currently part of a very hybrid system.

The UK is lierally building or just built their first Proton therapy center for cancer.  Previously if you could successfully argue for it and prove medical need, you would have been sent to the USA. 

Isn't the simplest solution to modify the Medicare rules so that the Government can offer medicare as insurance at cost in all markets (cost in thr sub-50 crowd) and then like ACA, cap the cost of the premium for people at 10% of their income?

UK has been behind on cancer treatment for a while...that's definitely an issue.

But we should not make perfect the enemy of the good.  Universal healthcare works...you can tweak it and take things from different system to make it fit the US.  US is not going to implement a UK system where the government controls all aspect of healthcare.  But a French or German model works for me.  Taiwan system also works well.  You can implement a Medicare for all system and add private insurance for those who want the additional coverage. 

A public option is a good start too but GOP knows that private insurance cannot compete against it so they do not want it.

 

[irvinehomeowner]

Needs to be at state level. One could even argue county for states like Cali. This would help at least with cost efficiency.

US can't be compared demographically and population-wise to other countries.

 

[Irvinecommuter]

Needs to be at state level. One could even argue county for states like Cali. This would help at least with cost efficiency.

US can't be compared demographically and population-wise to other countries.

Can't be on a state level because you would have issues with people moving around and receiving substandard care in one state and then moving to another for treatment. 

Needs to be federal level.

Demographics of US sucks but we already spend 2x more than the other OECD nations.

 

[irvinehomeowner]

Can't be on a state level because you would have issues with people moving around and receiving substandard care in one state and then moving to another for treatment. 

Needs to be federal level.

Demographics of US sucks but we already spend 2x more than the other OECD nations.

Pros and cons of state vs fed.

Just because it's at fed level does not guarantee care from state to state will be similar, but a threshold of coverage should be consistent from state to state and does not require fed for that. It's as easy as having in-state coverage and out-of-state coverage in your policy.

Pros is you can choose your level of care, just like some people fly to the US for better treatments for certain things, you may want to go to Idaho for one thing or Arizona for another.

Again, demographics/geography are different, most of those countries are small so people move to different areas all the time, not so true of the US. And for those who do, they simply choose a different coverage that will cover multiple states (as stated above).

The complexities can be handled better at a state level, healthcare is more of a local issue than a fed one.

 

[Liar Loan]

I like what I see so far from the Australian system. 

UK and Canada aren't that great.  We have uncles in Canada that have been waiting for years for care.  Same in the UK.  This is care they would get in the US immediately.  Also have had close relatives die waiting for care in the UK.  It's not all green on the other side.  I still do support universal health care, but lets not kid ourselves.  If you are insured in the US, you might be better off (other than the ridiculous premium price).

Bringing up our current medicare doesn't quite count because it's currently part of a very hybrid system.

The UK is lierally building or just built their first Proton therapy center for cancer.  Previously if you could successfully argue for it and prove medical need, you would have been sent to the USA. 

Isn't the simplest solution to modify the Medicare rules so that the Government can offer medicare as insurance at cost in all markets (cost in thr sub-50 crowd) and then like ACA, cap the cost of the premium for people at 10% of their income?

UK has been behind on cancer treatment for a while...that's definitely an issue.

Yeah, you think?  It makes healthcare much cheaper when you reduce access to expensive things like cancer treatment.

 

[Irvinecommuter]

I like what I see so far from the Australian system. 

UK and Canada aren't that great.  We have uncles in Canada that have been waiting for years for care.  Same in the UK.  This is care they would get in the US immediately.  Also have had close relatives die waiting for care in the UK.  It's not all green on the other side.  I still do support universal health care, but lets not kid ourselves.  If you are insured in the US, you might be better off (other than the ridiculous premium price).

Bringing up our current medicare doesn't quite count because it's currently part of a very hybrid system.

The UK is lierally building or just built their first Proton therapy center for cancer.  Previously if you could successfully argue for it and prove medical need, you would have been sent to the USA. 

Isn't the simplest solution to modify the Medicare rules so that the Government can offer medicare as insurance at cost in all markets (cost in thr sub-50 crowd) and then like ACA, cap the cost of the premium for people at 10% of their income?

UK has been behind on cancer treatment for a while...that's definitely an issue.

Yeah, you think?  It makes healthcare much cheaper when you reduce access to expensive things like cancer treatment.

That was just a lack of focus...plenty of other countries with universal healthcare do fine with cancer treatment. 
https://www.healthsystemtracker.org...ies-u-s-relatively-low-mortality-rate-cancers

Again..we spend 2x as much in costs but do not get significant better results.

 

[irvinehomeowner]

Again..we spend 2x as much in costs but do not get significant better results.

Do you think that will improve with a fed program? I don't.

 

[Irvinecommuter]

Again..we spend 2x as much in costs but do not get significant better results.

Do you think that will improve with a fed program? I don't.

Why not?  It has worked in other countries...is our government significantly more inept than those other countries?

A giant reason why US medical costs are so high is because we have a mess of a system with different networks, insurance, healthcare providers, and doctors.  Administrative costs are crazy. 
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsa022033
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/16/upshot/costs-health-care-us.html
https://www.commonwealthfund.org/pu...ospital-administrative-costs-eight-nations-us
https://www.advisory.com/daily-briefing/2018/07/23/administrative-costs

 

[irvinehomeowner]

Again..we spend 2x as much in costs but do not get significant better results.

Do you think that will improve with a fed program? I don't.

Why not?  It has worked in other countries...is our government significantly more inept than those other countries?

A giant reason why US medical costs are so high is because we have a mess of a system with different networks, insurance, healthcare providers, and doctors.  Administrative costs are crazy. 
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsa022033
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/16/upshot/costs-health-care-us.html
https://www.commonwealthfund.org/pu...ospital-administrative-costs-eight-nations-us
https://www.advisory.com/daily-briefing/2018/07/23/administrative-costs

Again, US is not other countries.

Do you think by saying "Okay, healthcare is now run by the Fed" is going to change all the issues you just mentioned?

You have to work it from the inside not the outside... which is why I think that it would be more effective if it's local/state.

Again, Fed is highly inefficient, having them manage something like healthcare, which as you say is already inefficient, is adding gas to the fire... not water.

 

[Irvinecommuter]

Again..we spend 2x as much in costs but do not get significant better results.

Do you think that will improve with a fed program? I don't.

Why not?  It has worked in other countries...is our government significantly more inept than those other countries?

A giant reason why US medical costs are so high is because we have a mess of a system with different networks, insurance, healthcare providers, and doctors.  Administrative costs are crazy. 
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsa022033
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/16/upshot/costs-health-care-us.html
https://www.commonwealthfund.org/pu...ospital-administrative-costs-eight-nations-us
https://www.advisory.com/daily-briefing/2018/07/23/administrative-costs

Again, US is not other countries.

Do you think by saying "Okay, healthcare is now run by the Fed" is going to change all the issues you just mentioned?

You have to work it from the inside not the outside... which is why I think that it would be more effective if it's local/state.

Again, Fed is highly inefficient, having them manage something like healthcare, which as you say is already inefficient, is adding gas to the fire... not water.

You can't run healthcare at a local or state level...people would just move when they need healthcare. 

I don't know why you think state or local government is more or less efficient than Federal government.  Medicare are run by the Federal government and is ran very well.
https://www.commonwealthfund.org/pu...are-vs-private-insurance-rhetoric-and-reality
https://www.consumerwatchdog.org/blog/private-insurance-vs-medicare-truth-numbers
https://www.healthaffairs.org/do/10.1377/hblog20110920.013390/full/

The basic question remains, why could universal care work in Taiwan or Germany but not work in United States?

 

[irvinehomeowner]

The basic question remains, why could universal care work in Taiwan or Germany but not work in United States?

Volume alone is a hurdle.

You're comparing a country of 300m+ to countries a fraction of that size.

 

[Irvinecommuter]

The basic question remains, why could universal care work in Taiwan or Germany but not work in United States?

Volume alone is a hurdle.

You're comparing a country of 300m+ to countries a fraction of that size.

Japan has 127 million people...universal care.
Germany 82 million people...universal care.

Just a matter of scale.  Procedures/policies are centralized.  IRS works pretty darn well does it not?

 

[marmott]

I know it's a bit more complicated than that but look how much it cost to study medicine in the US. No wonder the costs are high. In France it costs roughly $500/year to study medicine at university (from nurse to surgeon).

The UK example is a bad one tbh, or a good example for a system that is failing more and more.

In year 2016-2017 the French social security lost around $6B, this year it's around $350 millions. That's for 70 million people with 73 years experience managing a system like this.

 

[Irvinecommuter]

I know it's a bit more complicated than that but look how much it cost to study medicine in the US. No wonder the costs are high. In France it costs roughly $500/year to study medicine at university (from nurse to surgeon).

The UK example is a bad one tbh, or a good example for a system that is failing more and more.

In year 2016-2017 the French social security lost around $6B, this year it's around $350 millions. That's for 70 million people with 73 years experience managing a system like this.

UK system tries to do too much...complete top down control where many others simply pool resources and control payment/pricing.

 

[irvinehomeowner]

The basic question remains, why could universal care work in Taiwan or Germany but not work in United States?

Volume alone is a hurdle.

You're comparing a country of 300m+ to countries a fraction of that size.

Japan has 127 million people...universal care.
Germany 82 million people...universal care.

Just a matter of scale.  Procedures/policies are centralized.  IRS works pretty darn well does it not?

I think you are minimizing. You can't compare tax collection to healthcare, and even then, some would argue the IRS does not do very well.

Healthcare from top to bottom is a much more complicated animal... that's why all those issues you cited exist. Making it "universal" and the responsibility of the Fed will not fix it.

The Fed should not be involved in something like healthcare... we talked about this before. They can't even run Social Security properly.

 

[Irvinecommuter]

The basic question remains, why could universal care work in Taiwan or Germany but not work in United States?

Volume alone is a hurdle.

You're comparing a country of 300m+ to countries a fraction of that size.

Japan has 127 million people...universal care.
Germany 82 million people...universal care.

Just a matter of scale.  Procedures/policies are centralized.  IRS works pretty darn well does it not?

I think you are minimizing. You can't compare tax collection to healthcare, and even then, some would argue the IRS does not do very well.

Healthcare from top to bottom is a much more complicated animal... that's why all those issues you cited exist. Making it "universal" and the responsibility of the Fed will not fix it.

The Fed should not be involved in something like healthcare... we talked about this before. They can't even run Social Security properly.

It runs Social Security fine.  Social Security was never designed to be the sole provider of post-retirement pensions...people live a lot longer than the 1930s and there are a lot more old people than young people.  There are a few relatively easy fixes...question is whether it will get done. 
https://money.usnews.com/money/blogs/planning-to-retire/2014/11/14/5-potential-social-security-fixes

Centralizing healthcare funding and payment will eliminate a ton of issues..go ask docs and hospitals that have to deal with the different insurance companies, billing requirements, and billing codes.   
http://www.medicaleconomics.com/med...dministrative-costs-are-killing-us-healthcare

 

[irvinehomeowner]

Again... not so simple.

"A matter of scale" is much harder than you think.

I have had some exposure to gov't spending and at least from my experience, I wouldn't trust my tax dollars would be spent very well on trying to make universal healthcare (or building a wall).

 

[eyephone]

The pandora box is already open with healthcare. The majority of people in the US likes health coverage. The #1 issue for the midterms is health care across the US.

This is the main reason why US congress reps stopped doing town hall meetings. (I?m not going to drop any names, but one comes to my mind. I think you all know who I am talking about.)

 

[Irvinecommuter]

Again... not so simple.

"A matter of scale" is much harder than you think.

I have had some exposure to gov't spending and at least from my experience, I wouldn't trust my tax dollars would be spent very well on trying to make universal healthcare (or building a wall).

Okay...I guess you trust the insurance companies more.