Medicare for All: why not?

[TheLiquidGuy]

All other major countries do it.

Why not America?

[Peter1469]

US citizens demand a higher quality of care (probably too high). We can't afford that. If you look at the various dem plans they cover a lot more than other nations do.

As Chris and I keep saying a health care / insurance model can do two of these three things.

Quality
universality
cost

Most government "free for all plans" certainly get #2. Some get #3. None get #1- at least to American standards.

[TheLiquidGuy]

US citizens demand a higher quality of care (probably too high). We can't afford that. If you look at the various dem plans they cover a lot more than other nations do.

As Chris and I keep saying a health care / insurance model can do two of these three things.

Quality
universality
cost

Most government "free for all plans" certainly get #2. Some get #3. None get #1- at least to American standards.

I don't know about the quality argument. In the past I always just assumed that American health care was the best. But really I have no proof. Why wouldn't I trust Canadian, UK, or Swedish hospitals as much as American hospitals? They are all first world countries.

As for affordability, Bernie says we pay twice as much per capita as any other nation for health care. Drug costs in the US are also insanely high. Insulin costs about 10 times as much in the US as in Canada.

[MisterVeritis]

I don't know about the quality argument. In the past I always just assumed that American health care was the best. But really I have no proof. Why wouldn't I trust Canadian, UK, or Swedish hospitals as much as American hospitals? They are all first world countries.

As for affordability, Bernie says we pay twice as much per capita as any other nation for health care. Drug costs in the US are also insanely high. Insulin costs about 10 times as much in the US as in Canada.

Almost everything bad that happens is the result of government actions.

[Peter1469]

I don't know about the quality argument. In the past I always just assumed that American health care was the best. But really I have no proof. Why wouldn't I trust Canadian, UK, or Swedish hospitals as much as American hospitals? They are all first world countries.

As for affordability, Bernie says we pay twice as much per capita as any other nation for health care. Drug costs in the US are also insanely high. Insulin costs about 10 times as much in the US as in Canada.

Wait times.

Patients left ignored in hospital hallways in the UK.

There are more MRIs in the DC region than in Canada.


Etc.

[gamewell45]

Wait times.

Patients left ignored in hospital hallways in the UK.

There are more MRIs in the DC region than in Canada.


Etc.

Socialized medicine does not mean we are restricted to exactly what other countries offer. That can be fixed by identifying the problems they have and improving our system over theirs.

[Peter1469]

Socialized medicine does not mean we are restricted to exactly what other countries offer. That can be fixed by identifying the problems they have and improving our system over theirs.

The problem is that the government doesn't have the incentives to do this. I know that some hate the profit motive, but the profit motive is the greatest incentive for people to improve quality and lower (or attempt to lower) prices.

[TheLiquidGuy]

Wait times.

Patients left ignored in hospital hallways in the UK.
There are more MRIs in the DC region than in Canada.
Etc.

I have mentioned on this forum that my Canadian aunt has cancer. Her view is mixed. When I brought up wait times with her, she said that once her diagnoses was confirmed, there was no time wasted receiving her treatment. She received her chemo on schedule every three weeks as prescribed by the doctor. Her impression is that the Canadian gov't gives priority to more serious, time-sensitive maladies and when necessary is willing to delay (but not deny) less pressing issues such as knee surgery.

On the other hand, last year she had an irregular heart rate and spent spent 7 days in the hospital. Once they were satisfied she was stable, they gave her prescription and sent her home, with an appointment to see a heart specialist 5 weeks later. She complained about that. But I told her it seemed to me that the specialist was a precaution; more of follow-up. Her response was that I would feel different if it was my heart acting up.

Even if it's true that there are delays in Canadians health care. Maybe we could stand to be a little more like some of these countries

Life expectancy:
U.S.A. 79.1 ranked 46
Canada 83 ranked 16
Sweden 83.3 ranked 13
UK 82 ranked 26

All of those countries rank higher on the world happiness index as well.


I imagine it's true that there is some trade off that must occur for medicare for all.

But if MFA means no one is needlessly suffering and/or dying from treatable illnesses anymore, shouldn't we factor that into our decision as well?

[MisterVeritis]

I have mentioned on this forum that my Canadian aunt has cancer. Her view is mixed. When I brought up wait times with her, she said that once her diagnoses was confirmed, there was no time wasted receiving her treatment. She received her chemo on schedule every three weeks as prescribed by the doctor. Her impression is that the Canadian gov't gives priority to more serious, time-sensitive maladies and when necessary is willing to delay (but not deny) less pressing issues such as knee surgery.

On the other hand, last year she had an irregular heart rate and spent spent 7 days in the hospital. Once they were satisfied she was stable, they gave her prescription and sent her home, with an appointment to see a heart specialist 5 weeks later. She complained about that. But I told her it seemed to me that the specialist was a precaution; more of follow-up. Her response was that I would feel different if it was my heart acting up.

Even if it's true that there are delays in Canadians health care. Maybe we could stand to be a little more like some of these countries

Life expectancy:
U.S.A. 79.1 ranked 46
Canada 83 ranked 16
Sweden 83.3 ranked 13
UK 82 ranked 26

All of those countries rank higher on the world happiness index as well.


I imagine it's true that there is some trade off that must occur for medicare for all.

But if MFA means no one is needlessly suffering and/or dying from treatable illnesses anymore, shouldn't we factor that into our decision as well?

By what Constitutional power do you give yourself a share of the wealth I created?

[Peter1469]

I have mentioned on this forum that my Canadian aunt has cancer. Her view is mixed. When I brought up wait times with her, she said that once her diagnoses was confirmed, there was no time wasted receiving her treatment. She received her chemo on schedule every three weeks as prescribed by the doctor. Her impression is that the Canadian gov't gives priority to more serious, time-sensitive maladies and when necessary is willing to delay (but not deny) less pressing issues such as knee surgery.

Yes, I understand that Canada does triage and if you have a serious enough issue you likely won't have a long wait.

On the other hand, last year she had an irregular heart rate and spent spent 7 days in the hospital. Once they were satisfied she was stable, they gave her prescription and sent her home, with an appointment to see a heart specialist 5 weeks later. She complained about that. But I told her it seemed to me that the specialist was a precaution; more of follow-up. Her response was that I would feel different if it was my heart acting up.

Other things like knees as you mentioned above, are not high priority. If you need knee surgery and have a long wait time that is a major impact on you.

Even if it's true that there are delays in Canadians health care. Maybe we could stand to be a little more like some of these countries

Life expectancy:
U.S.A. 79.1 ranked 46
Canada 83 ranked 16
Sweden 83.3 ranked 13
UK 82 ranked 26

All of those countries rank higher on the world happiness index as well.

I don't think national health / insurance systems account for those numbers. There are many factors that come into play. Much of the US has a lot of unhealthy habits. And there has been a spike in middle aged Americans, primarily male, dying young from these habits or suicide. That drags our numbers down.

Many people point out that America spends a lot more than everyone on healthcare. Most of that is healthcare for the elderly. Care that is not seen as a priority in government run or government funded systems.

I imagine it's true that there is some trade off that must occur for medicare for all.

But if MFA means no one is needlessly suffering and/or dying from treatable illnesses anymore, shouldn't we factor that into our decision as well?

My solution for that is Remote Area Medical. This is set up much like what we use in the Army for pre-deployment medical checks. When it is your unit's turn, you march over to a designated area, typically a gym's basketball court. It is set up with numerous stations covering every general medical concern. They also have JAGs there for soldiers who need wills. I went through a lot of these. (I also worked a lot of them). On my last deployment in a unit of around 600 people, about 30 were found to have medical conditions which were serious enough to make them non-deplorable. They were reassigned and provided life saving medical care. Although it was too late for some. But is shows that this type of health care works.

This sort of set up would work well for those who could not get insurance. People in this group who are found to have serious medical issues could be put on State run high risk pools to cover the costs of their treatment.

But some will complain that treating poor people differently from those with very good insurance is discriminatory and mean. They will also complain that the poor will need to go when RMA has a clinic in their area and not have the ability to go whenever they feel like it. To which I respond, so?- they are getting a service at no cost to them.