The End Is Nigh!!!


Guest Mores
 Share

Recommended Posts

21 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

You had me in the palm of your hand, right up until that last paragraph. ;)  

I’d be open to having a state try that for five or ten years, and seeing what happened. (Just not, necessarily, my state.)  But for now, color me skeptical.  

Interesting to note that each of those Governmental Agency exists to regulate Inter State actions (transportation across state lines of Goods, People or Pathogens) Thus clearly fall in to the role of the Federal Government oversight.

Last I checked my health care does not commonly cross state lines.

Edited by estradling75
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Mores
1 hour ago, estradling75 said:

Interesting to note that each of those Governmental Agency exists to regulate Inter State actions (transportation across state lines of Goods, People or Pathogens) Thus clearly fall in to the role of the Federal Government oversight.

Last I checked my health care does not commonly cross state lines.

Too bad Wickard v. Filburn has not been overturned yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, MarginOfError said:

 

The common thread, though, is that independent government agencies that are able to operate without becoming political footballs tend to do some really good things.  Once they get put into political theater, everything comes off the rails.

 

 

In other words, their foul ups and corruption come to light? 😏

 

 

😜

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Mores said:

Too bad Wickard v. Filburn has not been overturned yet.

Just more of FDR's New Deal's bitter fruit. Yet the guy is lionized as a modern-day hero, his socialist programs being (as they were) bailed out by a convenient wartime economy. I'm not an FDR-in-collusion-with-the-Japanese conspiracy theorist, but it's not hard to see how some might draw that conclusion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, estradling75 said:

Interesting to note that each of those Governmental Agency exists to regulate Inter State actions (transportation across state lines of Goods, People or Pathogens) Thus clearly fall in to the role of the Federal Government oversight.

Last I checked my health care does not commonly cross state lines.

Off topic...but related to what you said...

Most pharmaceutical items DO cross state lines.  Multiple times.

Most Medical equipment going to where they go...DO cross state lines...Multiple times up until they get to their final destination...

Many medical tests NOW cross state lines as testing facilities and offices collate into more central areas for some medical systems...

and...ironically...for insurance in many instances...especially medical insurance...BILLING crosses state lines as it goes between a central office located in another state and the actual hospital. (our local hospital is a prime example of this where their billing department is in another state, but my insurance company is actually in my state, and the two seem to disagree a LOT at times).

 

Edited by JohnsonJones
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

Off topic...but related to what you said...

Most pharmaceutical items DO cross state lines.  Multiple times.

Most Medical equipment going to where they go...DO cross state lines...Multiple times up until they get to their final destination...

Many medical tests NOW cross state lines as testing facilities and offices collate into more central areas for some medical systems...

and...ironically...for insurance in many instances...especially medical insurance...BILLING crosses state lines as it goes between a central office located in another state and the actual hospital. (our local hospital is a prime example of this where their billing department is in another state, but my insurance company is actually in my state, and the two seem to disagree a LOT at times).

 

This is true... But so do most our food stuffs, the stuff that is used to build our houses, and (depending on sized of your employer) many jobs.  Yet we do not say it is OK for the government to dictate our meals, our homes, or our employment to the level they are trying to dictate our healthcare.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, estradling75 said:

This is true... But so do most our food stuffs, the stuff that is used to build our houses, and (depending on sized of your employer) many jobs.  Yet we do not say it is OK for the government to dictate our meals, our homes, or our employment to the level they are trying to dictate our healthcare.

This is the excuse that the government actually uses to control many items.  Government would not dictate anymore than it already does over items such as food, homes, or even employment.  Wickard vs. Filburn is exactly the government dictating controls over food, and Lochner v New York dealt very strongly with these ideas of Federal government controls over employment regulations and contracts over that of the states that also led to West Coast Hotel Co. v Parrish.

There are multiple Federal codes and regulations that dictate specifically about how your employer must treat you, what an employer can do, what food is allowed in stores and what food is not, what items your home is allowed and what items are not.

Getting even smaller, you then have another set of regulations and codes set by states which dictate HOW your house could even be built, and multiple other items that companies must comply with.  This goes down all the way to local governments with multiple hoops one must jump through and should not ignore lest they break codes and regulations...even on a local level with local inspectors.

The government is very much into the control of food (meals), employment (and unemployment) as well as Building codes.  It even gets as small as your local county.  Don't believe it, try building a house in a most counties in the US without the proper permits and see the fun that ensues.

Edited by JohnsonJones
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Mores
1 hour ago, JohnsonJones said:

Getting even smaller, you then have another set of regulations and codes set by states which dictate HOW your house could even be built, and multiple other items that companies must comply with.  This goes down all the way to local governments with multiple hoops one must jump through and should not ignore lest they break codes and regulations...even on a local level with local inspectors.

There is a balance point with regard to some items like this that many cities and counties have difficulty finding.   But there is a need for something like this.  Governments are instituted among men to protect us from fraud.  What we do today with building codes is a whole lot better than what was done in the days of Hammurabi.

Did you know what Hammurabi's code required of a home builder?  If a man built a home and sold it to someone, then the house fell down on the purchaser and killed him, the builder was to be executed for murder.  While I think we can all see the principle behind that as being reasonable, there are too many other factors.  Was there a wind that blew it down?  How strong was it?  Was it a storm that was expected or was it highly unusual?  Was it negligence or intent?  Fraud?  Was the wood used of a weak variety that the wood vendor defrauded the builder on?

That is what building codes were made to address.  They gather statistics on wind, furniture and human weights, etc.  They gather statistics on types of wood, steel, and concrete and what causes them to be strong or weak.  It is this additional knowledge and rules therefrom which help ensure a reasonably built home.

Let's take a look at one alternative:  In the days of Hammurabi, most people built their own homes, often with help from friends and family.  The family lived there for generations because they didn't dare sell the place.  And few wanted to build for someone else unless they were REALLY sure they could do a good job.  So, most only lived in hovels and poor buildings.  Is that the way we want to live?

Edited by Mores
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Scott
3 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

There are multiple Federal codes and regulations that dictate specifically about how your employer must treat you, what an employer can do,

Are you saying that this is a bad thing?

Here are the types of things that happened before there were employer codes and regulations:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radium_Girls

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Scott
23 hours ago, Vort said:

Just more of FDR's New Deal's bitter fruit. Yet the guy is lionized as a modern-day hero, his socialist programs being (as they were) bailed out by a convenient wartime economy. 

Most of FDR's New Deal policies aren't the same as the ones today.   Some of them were far superior.

Take the CCC program for example.  The CCC was a welfare program, but in the program everyone able bodied had to work for the welfare.   Community and rural improvement projects were done all over the nation.

Pay for the CCC program was enough so that families wouldn't starve to death, but yet lower than what the private industry was paying.    That way families who sent a bread winner to the CCCs weren't starving, but there was an incentive to get off the program because the private industry paid more.

To me this is the ideal welfare system.   It is one where help can still be provided, but one in which there was still an incentive to get off the program as soon as possible.

A lot of FDR's programs were actually pretty good.   

Although the work is of a different type the CCCs and Deseret Industries were along the same lines.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Mores
2 hours ago, Scott said:

Are you saying that this is a bad thing?

Here are the types of things that happened before there were employer codes and regulations:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radium_Girls

Yes, and they still happen today, though less egregiously.

The thing is that cases like this were already on the decline long before government entities like OSHA were established.  And the downward trend continued afterward.  If you were to see a graph of it, you really couldn't tell when OSHA was established because the curve was completely unaffected by the presence of OSHA.

Edited by Mores
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Scott said:

Are you saying that this is a bad thing?

Here are the types of things that happened before there were employer codes and regulations:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radium_Girls

No, I'm not saying it is a bad thing at all. 

Just pointing out that the government at all levels is already very involved in dictating and regulating thing such as employment, food, and housing/building.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎4‎/‎9‎/‎2019 at 9:52 AM, MarginOfError said:

I don't agree with this.  NTSB (National Transportation Safety Board) is a really good example of government gone right. The FAA, for the most part, has been a a good example of government gone right (the recent incidents being a potential blemish, but even then, a blemish caused by turning regulation over to the regulated). The CDC, for all the griping aimed at it, has been an immense success.

The common thread, though, is that independent government agencies that are able to operate without becoming political footballs tend to do some really good things.  Once they get put into political theater, everything comes off the rails.

 

I, personally, believe that single-payer health care could work...but only if it is administered by an independent agency and led by medical professionals (think, heads of AMA, AAP, etc). As long as Congress is trying to maintain control of it, it will be a disaster.

What I would consider a better solution, though, would be recognizing that almost all humans have basic and predictable health care needs. Government tends to do pretty well with things that everyone needs.  So let government take up the bill for preventative care. That means the annual physical, up to two additional physician visits (for common illnesses that may require medication), maternal and prenatal medicine, vaccinations, and wellness visits for children. Then let the insurance companies have the rest of the market. 

Like @Just_A_Guy, you had me until the end.

The thing that differentiates organizations the NTSB, FAA and CDC from a single payer healthcare system is that those agencies do not directly control, regulate or provide services to individuals.  The CDC is essentially a research organization with no regulatory power.  The NTSB and FAA investigate and regulate at the policy and corporate level. 

If you want to compare apples to apples, let's look at the USPS.  It does provide services directly to individual people, and it does so pretty darn well.  BUT... It has competition.  DHL, UPS, FedEx, etc. are all methods I could use to send you a letter or a package, and they're all privately owned companies.  So for the Government to be in that arena, it has to maintain a high enough standard to be worth using it.

We already see the results of a single payer system in other countries, and generally it's pretty bad compared with what we're used to.  Only recently did some of those places start allowing for private healthcare providers to even exist alongside the government system, so it 'll be interesting to see how it shakes out.

Why is competition the difference?  Because it forces accountability.  Government agencies have very little accountability.  That's why the DMV/MVA historically has been known to be awful in terms of efficiency and customer service.  Nobody with any power cares if it stinks, so it just keeps stinkin'.  Since there's no accountability from the top, there's only one other way to get accountability:  Give them some competition.  In Maryland, we now have private companies that have a license from the MVA to provide most of the same services.  (The only thing you can't do at a private company is get a driver's license.)  Tag & Title places are everywhere and I hardly go to the MVA at all anymore except to renew my license.  Funny thing: The quality of service from the MVA in my state has actually improved.  On occasion I've had an unusual situation where I had to resolve it at the MVA and not only is it faster, the person I deal with is more professional than they used to be. 

Edited by unixknight
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Scott
12 hours ago, unixknight said:

We already see the results of a single payer system in other countries, and generally it's pretty bad compared with what we're used to. 

Which countries are you referring to?   Of the developed world, ours is both the most expensive and error prone health care system.

How is it bad in other countries?   It is bad in places like Nepal and Uganda, but the developed world has good health care.   Even if ours is better than that of say Chad, it is a lot worse than the rest of the developed world, including both cost and quality of care.  

I can't say I know what the best solution is, but you can explain what you mean by your statement of other countries having pretty bad health care when in comparison to the US?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Scott said:

Which countries are you referring to?   Of the developed world, ours is both the most expensive and error prone health care system.

How is it bad in other countries?   It is bad in places like Nepal and Uganda, but the developed world has good health care.   Even if ours is better than that of say Chad, it is a lot worse than the rest of the developed world, including both cost and quality of care.  

I can't say I know what the best solution is, but you can explain what you mean by your statement of other countries having pretty bad health care when in comparison to the US?

Let’s put it this way, British Mick Jagger, with all his money, could have gone anywhere in the world to get his heart surgery.  He went to the USA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Scott said:

Which countries are you referring to?   Of the developed world, ours is both the most expensive and error prone health care system.

How is it bad in other countries?   It is bad in places like Nepal and Uganda, but the developed world has good health care.   Even if ours is better than that of say Chad, it is a lot worse than the rest of the developed world, including both cost and quality of care.  

I can't say I know what the best solution is, but you can explain what you mean by your statement of other countries having pretty bad health care when in comparison to the US?

I don't agree that quality is superior elsewhere.  As @anatess2 noted, people with enough money come here even from Canada and the UK to  get treatment either because U.S. facilities are better, or because the single payer system inevitably leads to very, very long waits for treatment.  The only advantage in those places is cost, but even that is mitigated when you consider their higher tax rates to pay for it.  

Not to mention cases like Charlie Gard last year... A young boy who was dying from a brain disorder, IIRC.  His parents wanted to take him elsewhere for treatment because British doctors had declared that he couldn't be saved.  Doctors in the United States offered to treat him for free, because they had methods that had a chance of saving Charlie.  Quoth the U.K. Government:  "Nope.  Charlie stays here."  And so Charlie's parents had to watch him die when there's a chance he could have been saved here.  I leave it to you to speculate about the motives of the British system.

Show me a country with a single payer system and I'll show you long wait periods for treatment and rationing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Scott
2 hours ago, unixknight said:

I don't agree that quality is superior elsewhere. 

Then how do you define quality?   The US health care is more error prone.  Many studies have said this.

https://www.legalexaminer.com/health/us-health-care-most-expensive-most-error-prone/

https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/06/us-healthcare-most-expensive-and-worst-performing/372828/

While our lower life expectancy (in comparison to other developed countries) can be partially attributed to lifestyle, how do you account for our higher infant and child mortality?  That isn't based on lifestyle.  

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/articles/2018-01-11/us-has-highest-child-mortality-rate-of-20-rich-countries

What metric are you using to say that our health care quality is superior?

PS, I'm not saying that the US is bad; anyone who is born here has hit the birth lottery jackpot, but our healthcare system needs improvement.  

Quote

As @anatess2 noted, people with enough money come here even from Canada and the UK to  get treatment either because U.S. facilities are better, or because the single payer system inevitably leads to very, very long waits for treatment.

First of all, there are far more people leaving the country to get medical care than there are coming to the US to get medical care.   It's not even close.   According to the American Journal of Medicine, a highly regarded source, more than 1.4 million Americans left the US to get medical care in other countries.  

https://www.amjmed.com/article/S0002-9343(18)30620-X/fulltext

Compare this with the approximately 100,000 people that come here to seek medical treatment.  

Second of all, the people who do come to this country for medical care aren't seeing yours or my family doctor, but are coming here because our superior medical care is for sale.  It does exist in this country, but almost no one can afford it.  They aren't coming here to see the same doctors and you and I can afford (well unless you happen to be a billionaire-I don't know what your financial status is).  

Third, even if there is a waiting list, people in the countries you mention can purchase private insurance for a fraction of what it cost here and get their treatment where and whenever they want.  

In Canada, a good private insurance plan costs less than $400 a month.   I the UK it is equivalent to about $160 a month.  

Quote

The only advantage in those places is cost,

Higher quality, more technologically advanced care, and less error prone is not an advantage?  Why not?   I'd certainly consider those to be advantages.   

I used to work for the pharmaceutical research industry (If anyone is curious, I helped develop the drug Buprenorphine).    Our technology didn't come from the US; it came from Europe and Japan.  More and more, the US is losing ground when it comes to medical research.   We're still high on the list in this regard, but we're slowly slipping.  We used to be on top when it comes to medical technology.   We aren't anymore. 

Quote

The only advantage in those places is cost, but even that is mitigated when you consider their higher tax rates to pay for it.  

But, the cost isn't mitigated.  Our government still spends more money per capita on healthcare than most of those other nations.   This isn't including what private citizens here also pay on top of that.   Do you really not see a problem with this?  

Quote

Not to mention cases like Charlie Gard last year... A young boy who was dying from a brain disorder, IIRC. His parents wanted to take him elsewhere for treatment because British doctors had declared that he couldn't be saved. 

First of all, the reason the doctors didn't want to do the procedure is that even if the child was saved, he would suffer greatly and they thought he couldn't be saved.  

Quote

  Doctors in the United States offered to treat him for free, because they had methods that had a chance of saving Charlie.

Dr Michio Hirano wanted to try an experimental treatment and he wasn't sure would work or not.  That's not the same as having methods in place.  Also, he was only one doctor.   All (or at best the vast majority) of US doctors agreed that the child could not be saved.   All doctors who saw Charlie agreed that he could not.   It was really only one US doctor who thought there was a chance.    

Further, you are comparing the death of one child to the tens of thousands of children that die here due to lack of medical care.  

Again, let me quote the statistic on childhood mortality.

Researchers say if the U.S. had achieved just the average childhood mortality rate of the other countries over the study period, more than 600,000 deaths could have been avoided.   

What evidence do you have that health care here is superior?  

Quote

Show me a country with a single payer system and I'll show you long wait periods for treatment and rationing.

Show me the US health care system, and I'll show you the most expensive and error prone health care system in the developed world.  I'll also show you million going bankrupt and dying because they can't afford health care and the highest child mortality of any country in the top twenty most developed countries in the world.  

PS, as mentioned, in those other countries you mention, you can still purchase private insurance at a fraction of the cost.

The US is the #1 nation (go USA!) for a lot of reasons, but healthcare is not one of them.   We're still superior to most of the world in this regard, but when it comes to the developed nations, we're falling behind.  

Edited by Scott
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Scott said:

The US is the #1 nation (go USA!) for a lot of reasons, but healthcare is not one of them.   We're still superior to most of the world in this regard, but when it comes to the developed nations, we're falling behind.  

I agree with you on this.  And the reason for that is GOVERNMENT REGULATION ON INSURANCE and LITIGATION.  And guess what Obamacare did... NATIONALIZED THE GOVERNMENT REGULATED INSURANCE acerbating the problem.

This is why basic medicine is stupid in the USA - INSURANCE dictates what a doctor does.  You go to ANY DOCTOR... they don't diagnose you.  Rather, the INSURANCE COVERAGE diagnoses you.  Otherwise, the doctor won't get paid because for some reason, Americans - who are very rich in world standards - think they should not have to pay for basic medical care.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Scott said:

Then how do you define quality?   The US health care is more error prone.  Many studies have said this.

https://www.legalexaminer.com/health/us-health-care-most-expensive-most-error-prone/ 

These links don't say what you seem to think they say, my friend.  Think link says the U.S. ranks last... in a survey of 6 countries.  (Spoiler alert:  There are 195 countries on Earth.)  It goes on to say "While sicker patients in all countries reported safety risks, poor care coordination, and inadequate chronic care treatment, with no country deemed best or worst overall, the United States stood out for high error rates, inefficient coordination of care, and high out-of-pocket costs resulting in forgone care."  So if you're saying "according to a survey the U.S. is more error prone than 5 other countries out of a pool of 195."  Then... okay sure.

1 hour ago, Scott said:

This article isn't much better.  The Atlantic leans heavy lefty and that bias is evident in its own text.  It too takes a pool of just enough countries (11 in this case) to rank the U.S. last, but is at least honest enough to admit that "And notably, both the U.K. and U.S. ranked low on the "Healthy lives" scale, which considers infant mortality, healthy life expectancy at age 60, and mortality from preventable conditions, such as high blood pressure."  even as it sings the praises of the UK which it ranks first.  Of course, The Atlantic attributes problems in U.S. healthcare to its lack of a single payer system, but fails to explain exactly why that is, nor does it account for the UK's performance in certain areas as mentioned above. 

1 hour ago, Scott said:

While our lower life expectancy (in comparison to other developed countries) can be partially attributed to lifestyle, how do you account for our higher infant and child mortality?  That isn't based on lifestyle.  

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/articles/2018-01-11/us-has-highest-child-mortality-rate-of-20-rich-countries

This article doesn't prove your point either, and it answers the question you asked me.  'Thakrar and his team suggest America's higher mortality rates are linked to its "persistently high poverty rates, poor educational outcomes, and a relatively weak social safety net."'  There.  That's how we account for it.

 

1 hour ago, Scott said:

What metric are you using to say that our health care quality is superior?


PS, I'm not saying that the US is bad; anyone who is born here has hit the birth lottery jackpot, but our healthcare system needs improvement.  

The metric I'm using is a history of medical innovation, technology, research and pharmaceuticals.  I do agree that our system needs improvement, and we can certainly have a conversation about the areas that need attention (like cost being chief among them) and how to address those, but I do not agree that giving Government control over healthcare is the solution.

1 hour ago, Scott said:

First of all, there are far more people leaving the country to get medical care than there are coming to the US to get medical care.   It's not even close.   According to the American Journal of Medicine, a highly regarded source, more than 1.4 million Americans left the US to get medical care in other countries.  


https://www.amjmed.com/article/S0002-9343(18)30620-X/fulltext

Compare this with the approximately 100,000 people that come here to seek medical treatment.  

Yeah, and look at the reason why people do that.  From your link:

"The reason more Americans have become medical tourists is simply that they are seeking less expensive health care."  We agree that healthcare in the U.S. is expensive. 

Your article goes on to say "The primary concern of Americans considering medical and surgical treatment in hospitals and clinics outside the United States is the quality of the care.... Many overseas hospitals are staffed in part by physicians and other health professionals who were trained in US hospitals. One hospital in India has 200 US-trained board-certified surgeons." 

So even if people are seeking better care, they're still getting it from doctors who were trained in the U.S. but what the article doesn't mention is that people also often go elsewhere to get treatments and procedures that are not approved by the FDA, and so couldn't be had in the U.S. at all.  

Ask yourself this:  If healthcare quality is so amazing in places like the UK, why would British citizens ever come here for treatment, even having to pay huge out of pocket costs for it?  How do you account for those 100,000?

1 hour ago, Scott said:

Second of all, the people who do come to this country for medical care aren't seeing yours or my family doctor, but are coming here because our superior medical care is for sale.  It does exist in this country, but almost no one can afford it.  They aren't coming here to see the same doctors and you and I can afford (well unless you happen to be a billionaire-I don't know what your financial status is).  

I don't know what that  means.  The article you provided above points out that medical care in other countries is becoming big business.  From your article again:  "Given the magnitude of income from medical tourism, it is not surprising that a number of cities and countries actively solicit medical tourism. Some examples are Dubai, Singapore, and Malaysia."  It goes on to discuss how the total cost of these trips is still cheaper than the same treatment in the U.S., so it goes back to being a matter of cost, not necessarily quality.

1 hour ago, Scott said:

Third, even if there is a waiting list, people in the countries you mention can purchase private insurance for a fraction of what it cost here and get their treatment where and whenever they want.  

In Canada, a good private insurance plan costs less than $400 a month.   I the UK it is equivalent to about $160 a month.  

If the single payer system is so great, why would people need private insurance?  Is the Government system not enough?  (Funny, seems like I've heard that before somewhere...)

1 hour ago, Scott said:

Higher quality, more technologically advanced care, and less error prone is not an advantage?  Why not?   I'd certainly consider those to be advantages.   

Your links have not adequately supported these conclusions.

1 hour ago, Scott said:

I used to work for the pharmaceutical research industry (If anyone is curious, I helped develop the drug Buprenorphine).    Our technology didn't come from the US; it came from Europe and Japan.  More and more, the US is losing ground when it comes to medical research.   We're still high on the list in this regard, but we're slowly slipping.  We used to be on top when it comes to medical technology.   We aren't anymore. 

Good to know.  Let's talk solutions to those problems.  That said, quality of healthcare is in how you use the technology, not where it comes from.

1 hour ago, Scott said:

But, the cost isn't mitigated.  Our government still spends more money per capita on healthcare than most of those other nations.   This isn't including what private citizens here also pay on top of that.   Do you really not see a problem with this?  

You misunderstood what I was saying.  The higher taxes I'm referring to are the ones in the countries with the single payer system.

1 hour ago, Scott said:

First of all, the reason the doctors didn't want to do the procedure is that even if the child was saved, he would suffer greatly and they thought he couldn't be saved.  

Dr Michio Hirano wanted to try an experimental treatment and he wasn't sure would work or not.  That's not the same as having methods in place.  Also, he was only one doctor.   All (or at best the vast majority) of US doctors agreed that the child could not be saved.   All doctors who saw Charlie agreed that he could not.   It was really only one US doctor who thought there was a chance.    

So the doctors are empowered to make decisions for the child's care, and not the parents?  If the parents wanted to  try, and there was a doctor willing to try, why do the UK docs and the UK courts get to say no?  This is what happens when you give Government all the power.

And why wasn't it worth trying the experimental treatment?  (Assuming he didn't just wake up that morning and think of it, then yes.. I count that as being in place.)  

1 hour ago, Scott said:

Further, you are comparing the death of one child to the tens of thousands of children that die here due to lack of medical care.  

Nobody in the United States dies from a lack of medical care.  Even before Obamacare came along, Medicaid and Medicare meant that, by law, anyone could get treated at a hospital if they couldn't afford to pay for it and it would be subsidized by the state.  Yes, being able to afford better care meant having access to more options, but the idea the people (including children) were just dying because they couldn't afford a hospital is untrue.

1 hour ago, Scott said:

Again, let me quote the statistic on childhood mortality.

Researchers say if the U.S. had achieved just the average childhood mortality rate of the other countries over the study period, more than 600,000 deaths could have been avoided.   

What evidence do you have that health care here is superior?  

These issues are addressed above.

1 hour ago, Scott said:

Show me the US health care system, and I'll show you the most expensive and error prone health care system in the developed world.  I'll also show you million going bankrupt and dying because they can't afford health care and the highest child mortality of any country in the top twenty most developed countries in the world.  

That isn't what your links showed.

1 hour ago, Scott said:

PS, as mentioned, in those other countries you mention, you can still purchase private insurance at a fraction of the cost.

The US is the #1 nation (go USA!) for a lot of reasons, but healthcare is not one of them.   We're still superior to most of the world in this regard, but when it comes to the developed nations, we're falling behind.  

Falling behind I'll grant you, but that is an issue we can address without giving it all to a Government... because when you give Government the responsibility for something, you also  have to give it a lot of power.  Not a good idea.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When we talk about infant/child mortality statistics, I wonder to what degree that discrepancy is based on genuine lack of (or inferior) health care, versus to what degree the increased US statistics are based on teenaged gang violence, suicide, the opioid epidemic, Europe’s filthy little habit of goosing its infant mortality stats by aborting sick fetuses rather than trying to save them postpartum, and the simple fact that the US population is more spread out and the logistics of getting rural folk to quality facilities in urban centers can be difficult.  

As for inefficiencies:  my experience is that the current US insurance-based system gives patients a lot of choice of treatments while also letting (insured) patients shunt a lot of the cost of treatment off to third-parties.  So, of course there will be inefficiencies.  People will always insist on heroic efforts to save their own lives even when the bean-counters decree that those lives aren’t worth saving.  That’s the fundamental tension here, and while there are always things we can and ought to do to nibble around the edges of that problem—the most effective remedy to “inefficiency” will inevitably be denying people the ability to independently contract for their own health care services, and then rationing the pool of government care that remains.  And that seems not to be something the American people are ready to accept (nor, in my judgment, should they).

Re bankruptcies:  I’ve done consumer bankruptcies, and bankruptcy is not as catastrophic as many have tried to make it out to be. It just means that people wind up not having to pay the full price for goods and services received; and the cost of that default is borne by the parties unlucky, unwise, or unscrupulous enough to have done business with the bankrupt (rather than being underwritten by the broader society, most of whom have their hands full just paying for their own debts— alone others’).

Finally;  government telling a child he must die—and affirmatively using threat of force against the parents if they try to save him—is many orders of magnitude worse than a child dying because government refuses save the child by reducing random Party B to involuntary servitude.  

We have many health care problems in the US, but we have not yet a) not only consciously denied a child lifesaving care, but prohibited his parents from seeking it elsewhere (hello, UK!) or b) denied or limited health care to people for the political gain of the people running the state-sponsored health care program (greetings, Venezuela and Cuba!).   And I’m willing to put up with quite a lot to avoid our crossing those two lines.  

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Scott
8 hours ago, anatess2 said:

This is why basic medicine is stupid in the USA - INSURANCE dictates what a doctor does.  You go to ANY DOCTOR... they don't diagnose you.  Rather, the INSURANCE COVERAGE diagnoses you.  

I agree with you.

So what's the solution?   Obviously what we have been doing hasn't been working.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Scott said:

I agree with you.

So what's the solution?   Obviously what we have been doing hasn't been working.

The following comes from Stone Tables, Orson Scott Card’s novelization of the story of Moses, and the setting is right after Moses returns from Sinai and has found Israel worshipping the golden calf.

Quote

“You were alone but you didn’t have to be,” said Moses.  Did you consult with the judges?”

“No two of them gave the same advice,” said Aaron.  “They were as frightened and confused as I was, and someone had to act!”

Moses roared back at him:  “No one had to act!  There is never a time when it’s better to do something terrible than to do nothing at all!”

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Scott
9 hours ago, unixknight said:

The metric I'm using is a history of medical innovation, technology, research and pharmaceuticals.  I do agree that our system needs improvement, and we can certainly have a conversation about the areas that need attention (like cost being chief among them) and how to address those, but I do not agree that giving Government control over healthcare is the solution.

I'm listening, but what is your solution?  

Quote

 Ask yourself this:  If healthcare quality is so amazing in places like the UK, why would British citizens ever come here for treatment, even having to pay huge out of pocket costs for it?  How do you account for those 100,000?

As said before, because it's for sale.  A few of the rich (and I have no problem for them doing this) can afford a specialized doctors and facilities that are here.

The US isn't the only place the rich are going for healthcare.  They are also going to Japan, Singapore, South Korea, etc.

 

Quote

You misunderstood what I was saying.  The higher taxes I'm referring to are the ones in the countries with the single payer system.

I understood you, but I was pointing out that most of those countries' governments also spend less on healthcare per capita than our government does.  Their high taxes aren't due to more government health spending; they are for other reasons.

Quote

So the doctors are empowered to make decisions for the child's care, and not the parents?

Here the insurance company make the decision for the child's care.   

Quote

If the parents wanted to  try, and there was a doctor willing to try, why do the UK docs and the UK courts get to say no?

I don't know the answer to this. 

Here, why do insurance companies get to say no?

Let me use a personal example.  My jawbones are decaying and I will die if I can't don't get them fixed.   The medical insurance won't cover the cost, so I'm leaving the country to get it fixed.  Why do insurance companies have so much power?   

Quote

Nobody in the United States dies from a lack of medical care.  Even before Obamacare came along, Medicaid and Medicare meant that, by law, anyone could get treated at a hospital if they couldn't afford to pay for it and it would be subsidized by the state.  Yes, being able to afford better care meant having access to more options, but the idea the people (including children) were just dying because they couldn't afford a hospital is untrue.

Yes people do die here from lack of medical care.  A lot of them do.  The law you are referring to only applies to what is considered to be an immediate emergency.  It doesn't apply to things that don't kill you immediately.
 

Quote

Falling behind I'll grant you, but that is an issue we can address 

I'm listening.  What would you say is the best solution?  

I have a dream on how to fix healthcare, but it is a pipe dream and will never happen.  

Edited by Scott
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Scott
1 hour ago, Just_A_Guy said:

When we talk about infant/child mortality statistics, I wonder to what degree that discrepancy is based on genuine lack of (or inferior) health care, versus to what degree the increased US statistics are based on teenaged gang violence, suicide, the opioid epidemic

I don't know, but for sure a lot of it can be attributed to lack of care.  While the things you mention may contribute, preventative care is very expensive for children.

While I currently make a high wage (engineering), I grew up in a household that did not.  I can guarantee you that we went without medical care a lot as children, and I can also guarantee that we were not alone.   I can also guarantee that it still happens today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Scott said:

I don't know, but for sure a lot of it can be attributed to lack of care.  While the things you mention may contribute, preventative care is very expensive for children.

While I currently make a high wage (engineering), I grew up in a household that did not.  I can guarantee you that we went without medical care a lot as children, and I can also guarantee that we were not alone.   I can also guarantee that it still happens today.

Scott, Ima gonna call “bull” a little bit.

Progressives can’t tell me that *all* of our infant/child mortality stats are due to guns, and then tell me that *all* of our infant/child mortality stats are due to BigPharma, and then tell me that *all* of our infant/child mortality stats are due to us not being nice enough to gay kids, and then expect me to believe that *all* of our infant/child mortality stats are really just the result of me not drinking the PPACA Kool-Aid.

I’m sorry, brother, but this “Children are dying and we’ve got to Do Something!” schtick has lost its potency with me.  You’re going to need better stats than simple nationwide child mortality figures that, by your own (or at least, your allies’) admission are apples-to-oranges comparisons.  

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share