I feel vindicated. Not 15 days ago I complained about paying more in taxes AND health insurance. And I’ve been saying it for over a decade. Fuck private healthcare, it serves no purpose for the people.
Yep, this is why I argue with people who say, we should raise taxes to fund it…no fuck that, we can afford it now already without having to raise taxes even a penny.
I have to say, being on Medicaid through college showed just how true this is. Being able to put my health first, rather than worry about if I could afford a doctor visit (or an ER visit), was great. The peace of mind of knowing that I would pay $0 for ANYTHING medical lead to me putting my health first.
The one potential charge you could get was for going to the ER for something deemed a “non-emergency.” Even then I didn’t worry about whether I could go to the ER after whiffing it off my longboard and smacking my head into the pavement because… well, the non-emergency charge was $8.
Imagine not having to choose between taking your kid to the doctor for $300 and a sick note for sniffles or letting him tough it out and get marked truant.
This may not be a popular question, but: Would Americans be willing to pay less?
No really. This would mean a lot of good jobs being cut. Yes, they are jobs that provide no benefit to the public (rather the opposite), but thinking about the big picture isn’t very American. Americans like to side with the little guy.
It gets worse. It would mean a huge pay cut for doctors. They are way overpaid compared to doctors anywhere else. Would Americans side with themselves the people the government or those nice family doctors?
First of all what? Typically the highest paid members of hospital staff of “Administrators” who have completely shifted health care into a for-profit business. If the government regulated them out of their jobs and there were price caps set in place instead of wasting hundreds of hours decoding billing and fighting insurance companies doctors would very likely make more. They would also be more likely to actually try to help you versus hit unrealistic patient exam quotas to try and extract as much money from insurance to benefit the administration staff. Hell new doctors in medical school are pretty much unpaid and forced to work hours that somehow circumvent labor laws. The whole medical industry needs to be overhauled. Getting rid of middle management would free up capital that could be properly reinvested into the hospital for better equipment, wages etc.
I expect that’s politically the way to go; not that I know anything about that. You get rid of a few inefficiencies and pay off other stakeholders with most of the gains.
The fact remains, if you want to lower health care costs to levels comparable to other countries, you have to lower all the costs to comparable levels, including doctor’s pay.
I don’t think you understand just how much bloated administrative costs and bureaucracy account for the U.S.‘s healthcare spending. It’s absolutely NOT doctors’ salaries accounting for the literally billions we are spending and no doctor’s shouldn’t be paid less to do the same job. Remove the middle men and ghoulish profiteering from healthcare.
The US can pay doctors as much as it wants. If Americans think that doctors deserve more than they get in other countries, that’s not for me to judge. Mind, that it does imply that the US is more unequal than other countries, because Americans want it to be.
True, merely lowering the administrative overhead will also go some ways to lower costs. But here, too, I wonder if Americans are really willing to do that. Sure, everyone wants to get rid of the useless middle men, but that’s not anyone’s job description.
Education costs in the US are also astronomically higher than other countries, which when you’re indebted 250-500k as soon as you graduate medical school, you are going to command a higher wage to make payments. The Education system in the US suffers from the same “we should run this like a business” greed that the medical industry does and should absolutely be reformed. Cause freedom isn’t free but it can be financed 🙄
Are you calling for profit insurance the little guy? I don’t know why people think doctors would be the ones taking the hit and not the for profit corporations.
No. I am asking if Americans would actually be willing to see cuts happen.
To answer your implied question: Because corporations don’t consume. They don’t go on holidays, live in mansions, … There is nothing there which can take the hit.
Employees receive pay. What you describe is called “fringe benefits”. It’s not unusual.
If you want to know something about these things, health care statistics, executive pay, or whatever, just ask. I am patient with you, because it is obvious that you are a minor. However, if you want to know more, then I expect you to keep the childishness out of “my reality”. Ok?
BUT, small businesses would benefit, and entrepreneurs, if they didn’t have to worry about health insurance. Doctors offices costs would come down without a lot of complicated billing stuff to do. Billing specialists would lose their jobs. Of my circle of people - husband would lose his job unless it was a Germany style system, and two other people I know.
If you want some sort of employment program, the medical system here is a shit way to go about it. Why not pay people to do something with a good impact on the land or the people?
And again - universal, tax-paid coverage would favor small business, it’s easier to take a risk when it doesn’t mean you might go bankrupt from a medical issue.
small businesses would benefit, and entrepreneurs,
Quite possible. Rates of self-employment are higher in France and Germany (2022 OECD stats). I’m not sure if that figure should be taken at face value, though.
unless it was a Germany style system
You mean a system with mandatory insurance? Administrative costs are substantially higher in US health care. Anything to bring quality and costs more in line with peer countries would mean a substantial hit, regardless of the system adopted.
Why not pay people to do something with a good impact on the land or the people?
Good question. Just a cursory glance into the statistics will tell anyone that the US system is dysfunctional. It’s been that way for decades or longer. I don’t even know when it became obvious that it wasn’t doing as well as its peers. And yet, there hasn’t been a lot of effort to improve it (Kudos to Obama, though). Maybe Americans just don’t want to do what it takes. Maybe they just want a better outcome, without all the small, necessary steps to get there.
On Unless it was a Germany style system (sorry I don’t know how to do the inline quotes yet)
I mean that Germany uses highly regulated private insurance plans to get to universal coverage. That would probably be an easier sell here, than a one plan to rule them all NHS. Not saying it’s a better idea. I have argued for YEARS that single payer would be a good idea here because we already have Medicare, just expand it to everyone and audit the fuck out of the providers would be cheapest and most efficient.
As you americans tell it: That’s bullsh*t. I see you guys getting fucked everyday by corporate. It’s hard to believe this is the U.S that holds international power… it looks like a Circus on fire looking inside from the outside.
Yeah that’s pretty informative. I am not sure how well the recommendation for implementing it in the US would work though. It’s probably the best chance anyone in the US has for government funded healthcare, but it would mean people in the poorest states would get the worst healthcare. It would probably still be a step up and we could give solutions to that problem later.
Year over year my insurance at huge companies would get both worse and costlier. It was to the point that the insurance that was costing me $200/mo was literally just acting as a safeguard against something costing me $10,000- which would have financially ruined anybody at those jobs anyway
Somehow you have more money for Israel, bailing out banks, covering police with pension, spending on stadiums, buying lavish gifts for SC Judges, and PPP loans but not enough to pay your citizens who built your country and shoulder it everyday?
Just a quick mote: That is great and all, but the US has more people than a large part of Europe…combined The whole of the US has a population of around 337 million, the entirety of the EU is 461 million.
If you aren’t just trying to drop this as a random fact and are instead pushing for universal healthcare in the US, might I suggest looking at something more meaningful, such as cost per covered person.
Numbers also don’t scale linearly with covered persons due to inefficiencies, so that is something to think about as well. Quality of care is also a consideration. If i need an optional surgery here in the US I can typically get in within 2-6 weeks for the surgery. In some countries it can take months.
sigh the healthcare debate is so much more complex than people realize. I am pro universal healthcare, btw.
If we adopted universal healthcare tomorrow without consideration of the issues, the worldwide economy would take a massive hit. Insurers and private healthcare companies invest dollars worldwide in many different industries.
The six countries have a comparable total population to the US…
This means the U.S. government spent more on health care last year than the governments of Germany, the U.K., Italy, Spain, Austria, and France combined spent to provide universal health care coverage to the whole of their population (335 million in total), which is comparable in size to the U.S. population of 331 million.
4 million more people covered for 2/3 the cost, and for what the US government is spending, it’s not even covering the 331 million people in the US.
Also it’s wildly dependent on what surgery. 1-2 years for some surgeries. Though the UK is significantly worse on that specific procedure, entirely on purpose.
Yeah I got into bottom surgery in 6 months because someone canceled and I was willing to stay in a hospital for a week in 2021.
And the UK NHS can provide similar speeds to the US. They just refuse to have enough clinics to accommodate the fact that trans people are about a third of a percent of the population and they’re unwilling to follow the modern best practices for transitioning. 2 year wait to begin an outdated and humiliating waiting period to start hormones isn’t something you do unless you’re intentionally underfunding it.
I support single payer knowing that I’m one of the groups that my country will choose to hurt in revenge. Because nobody should ever have to ask how they’re going to pay for chemo, even the people choosing to punish me for taking that problem from them.
So right now the PE ratio of the s & p 500 is 26 or so. That number on average historically around 15.5 if I remember correctly. Meaning it would take 15.5 year’s profits at current profit levels to pay for a stock you buy. Ie, if a share was worth ten dollars, it would take 15.5 years for the companies to all make enough profit to cover the price of ten dollars for all the shares.
So that’s average. We are now at 26 or more. So it now takes 26 years. Meaning, the stock market is TOO EXPENSIVE. This is a great thing for the boomers living off selling their shares. Just like with their overpriced homes, they are enjoying this situation.
Those of us working and BUYING shares are not. We can buy less percentage of a company for more money, and expect poorer returns on what we invest today. Same as with houses. We can buy less home for more money. Long term, means we will either have to work longer, or somehow live on less when we are unable to work anymore as we age.
So if you tell me we can perhaps get universal healthcare AND enjoy the benefit of stocks returning to reasonable levels enjoyed by previous generations, I’m now even more excited thinking about universal healthcare.
For those who are interested, the population of those countries combined is roughly the same as the US: 331,137,369 compared to 339,996,563 for the US.
But the cost of the US Healthcare generally shouldn’t be ignored either. And it seems to be by a good majority of our politicians.
IMHO, our population should give us MORE leverage to get cost reductions but it’s just not going to happen. We need a severe overhaul of our healthcare system and the people who benefit from our current system have too much power and influence.
It should though because economy of scale works to make things cheaper, not more expensive. They’re literally ignoring basic economics to make that argument.
Not always, and not that I disagree with your point either. The US healthcare system is so over bloated with administration that it’s likely experiencing diseconomies of scale instead
Well that’s the issue. We don’t have a single system. We have an industry. I also love how that link completely dodges the motivation to raise prices purely for profit. But even with that, we already know the legitimate cost problem is due to multiple middle man companies that provide no value and just take money. And the more care they deny, the more money they make. So it’s a combination of problems. We have to pay them enough for them to employ people to find reasons to deny care.
These stats are easy to find. The US spends a much higher percentage of its GDP on health care (16.6%) than anyone else. The difference is bigger than the entire US military budget. If the US cut its health care spending to the level of France (12.1%) or Germany (12.7%), it could more than double its military spending.
It terms of actual resources, the difference is even bigger, as US-Americans work much more than Europeans. I’m not sure what for.
ETA: At the same time, the US has a younger population, which should not really need as much care.
You would be on to something, but on a per Capita basis the US still spends more. So the reality is the US still spends more on healthcare than its developed counterparts
This means the U.S. government spent more on health care last year than the governments of Germany, the U.K., Italy, Spain, Austria, and France combined spent to provide universal health care coverage to the whole of their population (335 million in total), which is comparable in size to the U.S. population of 331 million.
oh it’s about the money. it’s about funneling money from both the government and directly from the citizenry into the hands of private medical death panel operators
what’s fun is for all this extra money we get a lower (and dropping) life expectancy and a higher infant mortality rate. that’s right, we pay more to bury our kids and then die sooner. FREEDOM BAYBAY!
I guess you could say that’s supposed to be the point they are trying to make: most of the insurance and hospice in America is overpriced, exploitative, and aren’t worth the paper they are printed on.
Jesus. Yet another spin I hadn’t thought of. Of course a cancer diagnosis should result in abortion, almost by default. Fuck you gonna do? Die for an irradiated fetus?
Invariably the law. I doubt they want that to be true, but going to prison in America is essentially a sentence to torture and death. There's no practical penalty for being forced to break the oath.
People talking about dismantling the military to pay for health care distract themselves from the fact that the health care system already holds all the money that is needed for single payer health-care. Which is what the people making money off this system want. They want people to blame the military, because that doesn’t solve shit.
For example, the entire admin back end can be civil service. (Some of it already is) and contracting needs to go die in a dumpster fire. You’ve got at least 30,000 infantrymen sitting around doing nothing on any given day. Take a survey of their skills and start assigning additional duties. You can always fall back on contractors if you run out of grunts.
Also, for the love of God stop maintaining an entire mechanized army. You don’t need to mount every soldier at the same time. Yes it’s awesome. But most infantry units aren’t going much of anywhere once they’re dug in.
Until superheroes or the Carebears become real we will need a military. The things I mentioned don’t touch the power projection debate on purpose. That’s a whole ideology thing that people need to be voting for and stuff. I’m taking about ways to save money whether we pull back or not.
Source: Ukraine. Gave up nuclear weapons in exchange for an accord specifying its borders and promising peace. Almost immediately got invaded by a nuclear power with an army after making political decisions on its own. If it had kept its nuclear weapons, Russia would not have been so cavalier about straight up invading. Disarmament is a lie.
Disarmament of an actual nuclear power has been done once. South Africa.
Ukraine never owned or controlled those nukes. They were guarded by Russian soldiers. They would have had to attack Russian soldiers, somehow repulse a Russian counterattack without Western aid, and then reprogram them since they didn’t have launch codes. Ukraine got the best concessions they could for giving Russia back the Russian nukes.
Ironically, without the “bigger threat” of the USA, they’d likely be at odds against each other. China still wants Outer Manchuria back, a region it was forced to cede to Russia back in 1860. Iran wants to be the de facto power of the muslim world, but has to deal with many other muslim countries that don’t want it, plus Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijan are countries that Russia would prefer to have control over.
I doubt China would steamroll them. People thought Russia would steamroll Ukraine, it very clearly didn’t. Besides, China isn’t exactly a loved country, it has “allies” that would likely abandon them on the first opportunity and many countries that would love to see them getting kicked in the proverbial nuts.
Any militaristic action of China against any of those big targets would trigger a response from several countries. While everyone will talk peace, in reality a good portion would try to play the war up for as long as possible, to bleed both dry.
They also distract themselves from the fact that a single payer system would be cheaper so we could actually afford more military with one. No dismantling needed.
I get the sentiment, but it actually would be a positive thing. Most people in these industries are there because the jobs were available and paid well, even if those jobs only existed to produce more unjustifiable profits for the bloated system.
Remove the jobs, and those people might actually go on to play productive rather than parasitic roles in society.
By contributing to the building up of the productive forces. Fuck this stagnation bullshit, invest in infrastructure and urbanization, invest in clean energy, and automation. Cut out meaningless jobs.
I work with companies in the health care space globally. The percentage of their profits that come from the US business versus others is just astonishing.
When you do a half assed public insurance option, you get a shitty result - terrible care, at quadruple the price. We need true single payer and more importantly, single system costs negotiator.
As mentioned in the summary, the combined population of those countries is almost the same as the US. So per capita costs are in fact about 2/3 that of the US government’s spending.
Here’s the paragraph from the summary, which lists which countries. Maybe it doesn’t show up on your Lemmy client?
This means the U.S. government spent more on health care last year than the governments of Germany, the U.K., Italy, Spain, Austria, and France combined spent to provide universal health care coverage to the whole of their population (335 million in total), which is comparable in size to the U.S. population of 331 million.
statnews.com
Active