cute fuzzy bunny
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
Or hibbert. Anyone who giggles inappropriately right after telling you that you've got incurable cancer isnt quite right in the head either...
...The US health care system is more privatized than that of any other advanced country, but nearly half of total health care spending nonetheless comes from the government. Most of this government spending is accounted for by two great social insurance programs, Medicare and Medicaid...
...Medicaid has grown rapidly in recent years because it has been picking up the slack from the unraveling system of employer-based insurance. Between 2000 and 2004 the number of Americans covered by Medicaid rose by a remarkable eight million. Over the same period the ranks of the uninsured rose by six million. So without the growth of Medicaid, the uninsured population would have exploded, and we'd be facing a severe crisis in medical care...
...The cost advantage of public health insurance appears to arise from two main sources. The first is lower administrative costs. Private insurers spend large sums fighting adverse selection, trying to identify and screen out high-cost customers. Systems such as Medicare, which covers every American sixty-five or older, or the Canadian single-payer system, which covers everyone, avoid these costs. In 2003 Medicare spent less than 2 percent of its resources on administration, while private insurance companies spent more than 13 percent.
At the same time, the fragmentation of a system that relies largely on private insurance leads both to administrative complexity because of differences in coverage among individuals and to what is, in effect, a zero-sum struggle between different players in the system, each trying to stick others with the bill. Many estimates suggest that the paperwork imposed on health care providers by the fragmentation of the US system costs several times as much as the direct costs borne by the insurers...]...
Nords said:Anyone recommending the VA as a model for nationwide healthcare must be carrying their own personal insurance. Or else they're planning to use Bumrungrad for the big stuff.
MasterBlaster said:Right now we have great medical care and can get it on demand but at very high prices and without access for everyone in the country.
My take on government run (or single payer) medical care is that there will be high medical access for everyone but at a cost of quality and on demand service.
So those other countries trade quality and timeliness for widespread access. Maybe that's a choice we should make. But at least let everyone know the trade-offs we will be making and have an even-handed debate.
Think US Post Office like service when you think of government run or single payer medical care. It gets the job done but you may wish the service and the timeliness was better.
Nords said:Anyone recommending the VA as a model for nationwide healthcare must be carrying their own personal insurance.
Cute n' Fuzzy Bunny said:Maybe you should consider paying out of pocket for a physical at a low cost provider where it wont land on your insurance companies medical records?
Let's just say that the military healthcare system has inspired me to adopt "prevention" as my primary healthcare manager. There's a reason that the Tripler Army Medical Center is referred to as "Crippler".HaHa said:Nords, if you go to a military hospital, your care is both paid for and delivered by the government. And TriCare has the social insurance model of Canada, Germany, etc. Which is, incidentally, the model Krugman put forth before he discusses full government provision of care with providers as employees-- same as in a military hospital like Walter Reed or Bethesda or Madigan. So you have dorect experience with these, and I assume that you are satisfied. At least satisfied enough that you are not planning to go into the individual market.
Regarding VA care, my buddy has hereditary spherocytosis, a blood disease. The VA correctly diagnosed him, gave him a splenectomy, and monitors and cares for him subsequently. He has work insurance, but prefers what he gets at the VA- most of whose Docs also have academic appointments.
Aye, there's the rub. And let's remember that as much as half of the American doctors graduated in the lower 50% of their medical school class.3 Yrs to Go said:Is there anyone here who has actually experienced both systems and has an informed opinion about the benefits / drawbacks of both?
bennevis said:Krugman's a liberal a.h.
And you said that with a straight face, too!Cute n' Fuzzy Bunny said:As far as the a.h., I cant comment. I'm not familiar with that particular degree.
Cute n' Fuzzy Bunny said:Well, he IS well known as "america's looniest liberal pundit"...
Martha said:Is this a case where someone is labeled by others as a nut because they disagree with him? Or are there facts to back this up? Such as the guy doesn't back up his claims with data, or that his data is faked.
If we have discussions about health care dismissed with claims that people are a**h***s or nutjobs, or whatever, we are never going to get anywhere on dealing with the healthcare problem. Of course, if people don't think there is a problem, we aren't going to get very far either.
Yes I Did.Nords said:And you said that with a straight face, too!
Cute n' Fuzzy Bunny said:Whoa, whoa......whoa! Dont git your squirrel tail in a bunch, m'am! I'm in agreement on dealing with the healthcare issue. The 'label' is in fact that. But I dont equate a lack of data or facts with liberalism either. It appears from reading his stuff that he's liberally bent. Not that theres anything wrong with that.Yes I Did.
MasterBlaster said:Here's the problem in a nutshell with changing the current system. Most people have (argueably) decent healthcare.
What the single payer system proposes is for most people to accept a somewhat worse system so that everyone can be covered. The degree to which the coverage for most people declines is the subject of the debate.
Some (the free lunch crowd) think that you can have all of the current goodies and still cover everyone. Others are very weary and plausibly think that we should be careful what we ask for.
The challenge is to get the majority of people to give up some of what they have now. That's a hard sell. Just look at government employees and union employee resistance to giving an inch on healthcare. That's an indication to the single payer proponents as to the uphill fight that they have.
The challenge is to get the majority of people to give up some of what they have now. That's a hard sell. Just look at government employees and union employee resistance to giving an inch on healthcare. That's an indication to the single payer proponents as to the uphill fight that they have.
MasterBlaster said:What the single payer system proposes is for most people to accept a somewhat worse system so that everyone can be covered. The degree to which the coverage for most people declines is the subject of the debate.
Some (the free lunch crowd) think that you can have all of the current goodies and still cover everyone. Others are very weary and plausibly think that we should be careful what we ask for.
...The government is already paying for 40-60% of the health care. The difference is, it has entirely different programs for veterans, old people, old poor people, poor people, and gov't employees. And YOU are already paying for the uninsured to get the most expensive health care available, at the ER...