Would Andy Be Better Off If We Had Universal Health Care?

[∞∞∞]

Why should other people pay for my healthcare? If I cant do it myself then I will accept the outcome, its nobodys business but mine and its definitely not anyone elses bill to pay for. Never understood that entitled way of thinking

Andy paid for healthcare; he worked hard his whole life.

But I guess he should have paid for the Super Duper Double-Deluxe Premium Plan which covers after care.

[∞∞∞]

Yes. Let’s just send him to the VA so he can die in the hallways. That’s universal healthcare in a nutshell.

Please share with the rest of us about all those corpses you had to shove your way past to have your physicals while you were in the Navy.

Don't believe all the propaganda. Every other developed country in the world has universal healthcare. If it was so bad, at least one would have abandoned it by now and gone to a private health insurance company model like ours.

You know it's better because when Congress had the chance to pick what model they were going to have they chose universal health care. They gave up potential millions in campaign donations to go that route. What's more, they made sure that it was for life so that they didn't have to return to private health insurance if they lost their office or retired.

Exactly. Americans love reinventing the wheel when it's not necessary. Not only does the data exist that it works elsewhere in the world, but we even have data here at home with Medicare and the VA.

Also your point reminds me of this article from a few years ago by a Veteran:
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/ar ... re/546974/

[houndawg]

I've never understood people's love affair with their insurance company. It's even crazier that people will get fighting mad to defend them. My dad did this with me once and screamed that the alternative is socialism!

You pay them every month, you are their customer. In return for being a loyal customer, they break their backs to not do anything you paid them to do. Moreover, their useless existence just makes the costs of the services you receive to be more expensive. What other industry operates like that? It's weird that we have any that can still operate in this country. It's the most non capitalistic business model ever.

start paying claims and there goes the bonus pool.....

[houndawg]

It's not that simple. You can't just look at a problem and think that a fix won't cause problems elsewhere. There are a lot of people in the healthcare field that are willing to "treat" people with things they don't really need so that they can profit from it. Healthcare is not an exact science and differing opinions come into play. There are bad actors on all sides of the field, including "patients" and providers. Universal Healthcare would help solve the problem for some, but it will likely create problems in other areas.

Flaggy is correct about unintended consequences but Trip's post was excellent and I'd like to see if anyone can rebut his arguments ...

From an economic standpoint, universal healthcare is proven to work:

1) The economy of scale is built-in and brings down prices of treatment.
2) It makes it easier for people to seek better jobs and maximizes abilities being used where best suited in the overall economy.
3) It encourages entrepreneurship (and innovation) as people don't need to worry about insurance. People can take more risks.
4) It makes small businesses significantly more attractive as they don't have to worry about non-competitive insurance benefits.
5) It removes the administrative costs for companies as they don't have to worry about insurance; they can better use this time elsewhere.
6) It largely removes administrative time required from healthcare workers and allows them to better focus on patients.
7) It incentivizes preventative care. Not only does this keep costs down for everyone, but a healthier society increases an economy's output, efficiency, and tax base.
8) It makes for a happier society, especially when mental health care is provided. Better physical and mental health treatments decrease suicide rates, homicide rates, substance abuse rates, and crime rates. All this effectively adds to your economic output and decreases tax burdens.

I'm sure I'm missing a few points, but we don't even need to reinvent the wheel on this one. It won't be perfect (nothing is), but it would absolutely help Andy, help most Americans, help ease the burden off loved ones, and boost the economy as a whole.

It does seem to be fairly popular in 32 of 33 developed nations...

[AZGrizFan]

Please share with the rest of us about all those corpses you had to shove your way past to have your physicals while you were in the Navy.

Don't believe all the propaganda. Every other developed country in the world has universal healthcare. If it was so bad, at least one would have abandoned it by now and gone to a private health insurance company model like ours.

You know it's better because when Congress had the chance to pick what model they were going to have they chose universal health care. They gave up potential millions in campaign donations to go that route. What's more, they made sure that it was for life so that they didn't have to return to private health insurance if they lost their office or retired.

Exactly. Americans love reinventing the wheel when it's not necessary. Not only does the data exist that it works elsewhere in the world, but we even have data here at home with Medicare and the VA.

Also your point reminds me of this article from a few years ago by a Veteran:
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/ar ... re/546974/

Every other “developed” country in the world has the US to pay for their defense. I’ve said it a thousand times on here: Get us out of those countries, let them pay for their OWN defense and two things would happen….we’d have enough money to pay for healthcare for EVERY American, and those “developed” countries suddenly WOULDN’T.

Oh, and it’s not propaganda. I experienced it first hand. There might not be a more depressing place in America than a VA hospital.

[Baldy]

Exactly. Americans love reinventing the wheel when it's not necessary. Not only does the data exist that it works elsewhere in the world, but we even have data here at home with Medicare and the VA.

Also your point reminds me of this article from a few years ago by a Veteran:
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/ar ... re/546974/

Every other “developed” country in the world has the US to pay for their defense. I’ve said it a thousand times on here: Get us out of those countries, let them pay for their OWN defense and two things would happen….we’d have enough money to pay for healthcare for EVERY American, and those “developed” countries suddenly WOULDN’T.

Oh, and it’s not propaganda. I experienced it first hand. There might not be a more depressing place in America than a VA hospital.

Good points and I'll add that every other developed country in the world does not have our corrupt bureaucratic system, either. They have turned Social Security into a government mandated and sanctioned Ponzi scheme. What do you think they would do to UHC?

[kalm]

We already have those problems with the current for-profit model. Insurance companies exist through denying care.

No system is perfect. Universal care is cheaper, more end-user friendly, and produces equal to better outcomes.

Where is universal health care “more user friendly” and produce “equal to better outcomes…”?

Better outcomes in the OECD are well documented.

User friendly is in the eyes of the beholder. The reduction in office administration requirements - billing, paper work, etc alone should make it far easier.

There are two types of healthcare workers in both public and private. 1) Automatons who follow script and will not help you outside their box. 2). The problem solvers who are willing to advocate and manipulate their own recognized shitty system on your behalf. The 2nd group are rarely front line and once you find one, treat them like discovered gold.

I guarantee you I know as much about Kaiser-Permanente’s pharmacy system and it’s myriad of departments as anyone in their admin/management. I had to because a mistake by their mail order pharmacy landed me in ICU and also battling with them over my wife’s meds.

[SeattleGriz]

Exactly. Americans love reinventing the wheel when it's not necessary. Not only does the data exist that it works elsewhere in the world, but we even have data here at home with Medicare and the VA.

Also your point reminds me of this article from a few years ago by a Veteran:
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/ar ... re/546974/

Every other “developed” country in the world has the US to pay for their defense. I’ve said it a thousand times on here: Get us out of those countries, let them pay for their OWN defense and two things would happen….we’d have enough money to pay for healthcare for EVERY American, and those “developed” countries suddenly WOULDN’T.

Oh, and it’s not propaganda. I experienced it first hand. There might not be a more depressing place in America than a VA hospital.

Agreed on depressing. As a clinical lab rep for 8 years, part of my territory was to cover the VA hospitals in the states of Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Montana, Alaska and Utah.

The lab workers constantly criticized the IT systems, bureaucracy
and lack of staffing. It was a common occurrence to see multiple Veterans sitting in wheelchairs by themselves in a lobby, only to see those same Veterans sitting in the same spot two hours later.

[kalm]

Exactly. Americans love reinventing the wheel when it's not necessary. Not only does the data exist that it works elsewhere in the world, but we even have data here at home with Medicare and the VA.

Also your point reminds me of this article from a few years ago by a Veteran:
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/ar ... re/546974/

Every other “developed” country in the world has the US to pay for their defense. I’ve said it a thousand times on here: Get us out of those countries, let them pay for their OWN defense and two things would happen….we’d have enough money to pay for healthcare for EVERY American, and those “developed” countries suddenly WOULDN’T.

Oh, and it’s not propaganda. I experienced it first hand. There might not be a more depressing place in America than a VA hospital.

You mean the place with the veteran population suffering from PTSD, alcoholism, diabetes, etc related to years of service and the aftermath of war? I’m quite sure it is depressing.

BTK was spot on with his post.

[SeattleGriz]

Where is universal health care “more user friendly” and produce “equal to better outcomes…”?

Better outcomes in the OECD are well documented.

User friendly is in the eyes of the beholder. The reduction in office administration requirements - billing, paper work, etc alone should make it far easier.

There are two types of healthcare workers in both public and private. 1) Automatons who follow script and will not help you outside their box. 2). The problem solvers who are willing to advocate and manipulate their own recognized shitty system on your behalf. The 2nd group are rarely front line and once you find one, treat them like discovered gold.

I guarantee you I know as much about Kaiser-Permanente’s pharmacy system and it’s myriad of departments as anyone in their admin/management. I had to because a mistake by their mail order pharmacy landed me in ICU and also battling with them over my wife’s meds.

Good Lord bro. I can only imagine. My favorite pharmacy story to tell is when my wife was going through chemo. Methotrexate requires what is called leucovorin rescue.

Essentially you take Folinic acid and it drops whatever Methotrexate is still left in your system. The doctors would not release my wife until she was at certain levels and we would pick up her prescription on the way out the door at the hospital pharmacy. Up to that point, they were injecting the leucovorin into her port.

Well, one day, she wasn't released until after the hospital pharmacy was closed, so we went to the only open pharmacy around, which was a Walgreens. I tried to pick up her prescription and it was denied. Health Scripts, who managed pharmacy for our medical plan denied our prescription.

When I got on the phone with customer service, they denied the prescription because they wanted to mail the medication to her. I told them that was fine if they could get us the prescription in 15 minutes. After my smartass reply, I then had to explain to the representative why we needed the Folinic acid NOW. They don't call it "rescue" for nothing.

Needless to say, I finally got the prescription right before closing time. Otherwise I would have had to take my wife to the local ER for the leucovorin.

[kalm]

Better outcomes in the OECD are well documented.

User friendly is in the eyes of the beholder. The reduction in office administration requirements - billing, paper work, etc alone should make it far easier.

There are two types of healthcare workers in both public and private. 1) Automatons who follow script and will not help you outside their box. 2). The problem solvers who are willing to advocate and manipulate their own recognized shitty system on your behalf. The 2nd group are rarely front line and once you find one, treat them like discovered gold.

I guarantee you I know as much about Kaiser-Permanente’s pharmacy system and it’s myriad of departments as anyone in their admin/management. I had to because a mistake by their mail order pharmacy landed me in ICU and also battling with them over my wife’s meds.

Good Lord bro. I can only imagine. My favorite pharmacy story to tell is when my wife was going through chemo. Methotrexate requires what is called leucovorin rescue.

Essentially you take Folinic acid and it drops whatever Methotrexate is still left in your system. The doctors would not release my wife until she was at certain levels and we would pick up her prescription on the way out the door at the hospital pharmacy. Up to that point, they were injecting the leucovorin into her port.

Well, one day, she wasn't released until after the hospital pharmacy was closed, so we went to the only open pharmacy around, which was a Walgreens. I tried to pick up her prescription and it was denied. Health Scripts, who managed pharmacy for our medical plan denied our prescription.

When I got on the phone with customer service, they denied the prescription because they wanted to mail the medication to her. I told them that was fine if they could get us the prescription in 15 minutes. After my smartass reply, I then had to explain to the representative why we needed the Folinic acid NOW. They don't call it "rescue" for nothing.

Needless to say, I finally got the prescription right before closing time. Otherwise I would have had to take my wife to the local ER for the leucovorin.

Now imagine the elderly trying to navigate it.

[GannonFan]

Our system sucks for the user. You can get great care, but you have to be really dogged about it and even then you have to hope that it's covered by insurance.

I would rather have the NHS system that the UK has. And I say that knowing that the level of care wouldn't necessarily be better, and could actually be worse. But people wouldn't feel like they couldn't get care and people wouldn't have to break the bank to get care. A system like the NHS would at least give us the basic care and the safety net most people need. I fully understand that even in that system, people that can afford more do all they can to avoid the NHS and go to private care instead, and the best doctors do the same thing and try to work outside of the system. But I think that's almost what we have now, just without the safety net of the most basic care.

[kalm]

Our system sucks for the user. You can get great care, but you have to be really dogged about it and even then you have to hope that it's covered by insurance.

I would rather have the NHS system that the UK has. And I say that knowing that the level of care wouldn't necessarily be better, and could actually be worse. But people wouldn't feel like they couldn't get care and people wouldn't have to break the bank to get care. A system like the NHS would at least give us the basic care and the safety net most people need. I fully understand that even in that system, people that can afford more do all they can to avoid the NHS and go to private care instead, and the best doctors do the same thing and try to work outside of the system. But I think that's almost what we have now, just without the safety net of the most basic care.

All of this.

[CAA Flagship]

There is a certain aspect of private healthcare that won't go away with any type of UHC, and that is that the government will still be forced to rely on private healthcare companies to administer the program. The government has fully admitted that it is not capable, or willing, to do it. So that part would be interesting to see take shape. Would the government restrict the private companies to only those that don't offer private insurance so as to avoid a conflict of interest with their administration time, or with relationships with providers?

[Pwns]

I don't think anyone should have to bankrupt themselves or take a second mortgage or set their retirement back a decade in order to pay medical bills. A lot of non-routine health care is ludicrously more expensive than it really ought to be.

UHC would fix that problem and you could say that's enough a reason to implement it but I also think it'll create more problems than UHC advocates think it will. This country is just not very physically healthy and just plain doesn't train enough medical personnel. Every year it seems like doctor morale gets worse and people with less training like NPs and PAs take on more responsibilities.

[Col Hogan]

Pros and cons…not mine

]https://vittana.org/17-universal-health ... s-and-cons

[∞∞∞]

Pros and cons…not mine

]https://vittana.org/17-universal-health ... s-and-cons

Nothing against you, but Louise Gaille with a B.A. of Economics isn't exactly a good source.

Here's some actual studies with regards to the negatives/positives about UHC done by researchers:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7692272/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8645236/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6881910/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8900414/

[SeattleGriz]

Pros and cons…not mine

]https://vittana.org/17-universal-health ... s-and-cons

Nothing against you, but Louise Gaille with a B.A. of Economics isn't exactly a good source.

Here's some actual studies with regards to the negatives/positives about UHC done by researchers:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7692272/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8645236/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6881910/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8900414/

C'mon. Your first link lists the authors as working at:

1Department of Exercise and Sport Science, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC 27599, USA; ude.cnu.liame@rrekz (Z.Y.K.); moc.liamg@renots.l.rd (L.S.)

2Department of Implementation Science, Wake Forest School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, NC 27157, USA

These are the same guys that tell us eggs are good one week and then bad the next.

[AZGrizFan]

Nothing against you, but Louise Gaille with a B.A. of Economics isn't exactly a good source.

Here's some actual studies with regards to the negatives/positives about UHC done by researchers:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7692272/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8645236/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6881910/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8900414/

C'mon. Your first link lists the authors as working at:

1Department of Exercise and Sport Science, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC 27599, USA; ude.cnu.liame@rrekz (Z.Y.K.); moc.liamg@renots.l.rd (L.S.)

2Department of Implementation Science, Wake Forest School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, NC 27157, USA

[AZGrizFan]

I don't think anyone should have to bankrupt themselves or take a second mortgage or set their retirement back a decade in order to pay medical bills. A lot of non-routine health care is ludicrously more expensive than it really ought to be.

UHC would fix that problem and you could say that's enough a reason to implement it but I also think it'll create more problems than UHC advocates think it will. This country is just not very physically healthy and just plain doesn't train enough medical personnel. Every year it seems like doctor morale gets worse and people with less training like NPs and PAs take on more responsibilities.

We must have sufficient medical personnel. Biden just fired several thousand of them because they wouldn’t take the jab.

[kalm]

I don't think anyone should have to bankrupt themselves or take a second mortgage or set their retirement back a decade in order to pay medical bills. A lot of non-routine health care is ludicrously more expensive than it really ought to be.

UHC would fix that problem and you could say that's enough a reason to implement it but I also think it'll create more problems than UHC advocates think it will. This country is just not very physically healthy and just plain doesn't train enough medical personnel. Every year it seems like doctor morale gets worse and people with less training like NPs and PAs take on more responsibilities.

Yes. And some advice from my various experiences.

General practitioners are often just gate keepers to insured procedures including some highly necessary ones. Remember, insurance companies are rewarded for denying coverage.

Doctors and specialists like pharmacist consultants have patient time requirements to meet. If you go in with several issues at once they are forced to prioritize which to address in the 15 minutes you’re in front of them.

1). Have a clear list of issues and note follow up instructions.
2). Be prepared to have to follow up on unaddressed issues on your own.
3). While your concern might not be immediately resolved and will remain in your thoughts until it is, your Dr. stops thinking about you the second he leaves the appointment.
4). Ask for specialists. It’s been my experience that with so much on their plate, they often gladly write referrals to pass you on.

[UNI88]

Pros and cons…not mine

]https://vittana.org/17-universal-health ... s-and-cons

Nothing against you, but Louise Gaille with a B.A. of Economics isn't exactly a good source.

Here's some actual studies with regards to the negatives/positives about UHC done by researchers:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7692272/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8645236/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6881910/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8900414/

Why isn't Louise Gaille a good source?

What is wrong with Gaille's list of pro's & con's? It presented what IMO is a fairly objective list.

While I think UHC should be considered, I try to be objective enough to realize that it's not a panacea and there will be issues. Those issues can be better mitigated and the resulting solution much better if we acknowledge and account for them rather than just copying some other country's system.

[SeattleGriz]

I don't think anyone should have to bankrupt themselves or take a second mortgage or set their retirement back a decade in order to pay medical bills. A lot of non-routine health care is ludicrously more expensive than it really ought to be.

UHC would fix that problem and you could say that's enough a reason to implement it but I also think it'll create more problems than UHC advocates think it will. This country is just not very physically healthy and just plain doesn't train enough medical personnel. Every year it seems like doctor morale gets worse and people with less training like NPs and PAs take on more responsibilities.

Yes. And some advice from my various experiences.

General practitioners are often just gate keepers to insured procedures including some highly necessary ones. Remember, insurance companies are rewarded for denying coverage.

Doctors and specialists like pharmacist consultants have patient time requirements to meet. If you go in with several issues at once they are forced to prioritize which to address in the 15 minutes you’re in front of them.

1). Have a clear list of issues and note follow up instructions.
2). Be prepared to have to follow up on unaddressed issues on your own.
3). While your concern might not be immediately resolved and will remain in your thoughts until it is, your Dr. stops thinking about you the second he leaves the appointment.
4). Ask for specialists. It’s been my experience that with so much on their plate, they often gladly write referrals to pass you on.

[Baldy]

Nothing against you, but Louise Gaille with a B.A. of Economics isn't exactly a good source.

Here's some actual studies with regards to the negatives/positives about UHC done by researchers:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7692272/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8645236/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6881910/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8900414/

Why isn't Louise Gaille a good source?

What is wrong with Gaille's list of pro's & con's? It presented what IMO is a fairly objective list.

While I think UHC should be considered, I try to be objective enough to realize that it's not a panacea and there will be issues. Those issues can be better mitigated and the resulting solution much better if we acknowledge and account for them rather than just copying some other country's system.

Exactly, and you can pretty much bet the farm that under UHC, it will be a guy with a BA or a BBA on the government health panel deciding whether or not you're too old or in too poor of health to get the expensive treatment you need.

[∞∞∞]

Why isn't Louise Gaille a good source?

What is wrong with Gaille's list of pro's & con's? It presented what IMO is a fairly objective list.

While I think UHC should be considered, I try to be objective enough to realize that it's not a panacea and there will be issues. Those issues can be better mitigated and the resulting solution much better if we acknowledge and account for them rather than just copying some other country's system.

I'm not saying it's not objective, but it's not exactly well thought:

Pros:
5. It creates a workforce that is healthier.
In the United States, 46% of patients went to the emergency room for medical services because that was the only place they could afford to go before the Affordable Care Act was implemented. That is because an emergency room is obligated by law to care for people, whether they can afford to pay or not. With universal health care, there is a greater emphasis placed on preventative care. When people can be proactive about their health, the need for emergency interventions decreases.

Cons:
2. It may stop people from being careful about their health.
When a system of universal health care is present, the general population may not treat their health as wisely as they would if the direct costs of their choices were their personal responsibility. There is no financial incentive for someone to stay healthy in such a system. That means people might schedule an appointment for any reason at all or not take care of themselves as they probably should.

It's inconsistent and about as much as I expect from people like you, me, or some rando with a bachelor's degree.

Lots of blanket statements without the why (or citations). It'd be fine if she wrote it on a message board, but it's not a good source.