Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Tuesday April 09 2019, @12:41PM   Printer-friendly
from the But-I-*like*-getting-50-different-invoices-for-one-hospital-stay dept.

There is an instinct among political pundits to confuse caution for practicality — an assumption that those who advocate for incremental change are being reasonable, while those pushing for bold reforms aren’t. This is seen most starkly in the debate around health care reform, despite the fact that the “practical” pushers of limited reform fail to address the real problems in our health care system.

We all recognize that the status quo isn’t working. We spend more per person than any other country on health care, but we aren’t getting any bang for our buck. We have lower life expectancy, higher infant mortality rates and more preventable deaths, and too many personal bankruptcies are due at least in part to medical bills.

[...]Time to get real. As an economist who has spent decades studying our health care system, I can tell you that Medicare for All advocates are the only ones who are being reasonable, because theirs is the only plan that will control health care costs while finally achieving universal coverage.

The problem with incremental plans, whether they are public options, buy-ins to Medicare or Medicaid, or pumping more money into subsidies in the Affordable Care Act's individual marketplace, is that they preserve the private health insurance system weighing down our health care. [...]they are leaving the main reason for our system’s dysfunction in place: the multipayer, for-profit financing model.

Commercial insurance companies are nothing more than middle men. They add no value to our system, but they do drive up costs with their bloated claims departments, marketing and advertising budgets and executive salaries. We pay for all of these things before a single dollar is spent on the delivery of care.

They also create extra costs for providers who need large administrative staffs to deal with billing systems, accounting for as much as $100,000 per physician.

Any plans short of Medicare for All leaves these costs in place. In other words, they leave hundreds of billions of dollars a year in savings on the table.

[...]Gerald Friedman, a health care and labor economist, is an economics professor at University of Massachusetts Amherst and the director of The Hopbrook Institute.

Medicare For All

[Related]:
Democrats' promise of Medicare for All is remarkably misguided and unrealistic

Trump wants to drop a neutron bomb on Obamacare. Over to you, 2020 voters.

Take it from me, tweaks won't fix health care. Dems should focus on Medicare for All.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 09 2019, @01:51PM (13 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 09 2019, @01:51PM (#826724)

    When we're talking about "how much will this guy pay to keep his life", that number tends to inflate quite a bit beyond what it actually costs for the treatment.

    This is an education problem. People need to start seeing the healthcare industry's propaganda for what it is and start paying attention to all the costs, risks, and tradeoffs they want you to ignore. They want you to think it is like magic that "just works".

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 09 2019, @02:11PM (12 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 09 2019, @02:11PM (#826747)

    Seeing is nice, but if you have no choice…

    • (Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 09 2019, @02:17PM (11 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 09 2019, @02:17PM (#826754)

      I would rather let my body deal with 99% of health issues on its own rather than risk someone with rudimentary understanding messing around with it. Many people think this same way, which why "natural" cures that mostly do nothing are such a big thing. Doing nothing is often better than letting someone who doesn't know what they are doing try to help.

      Just look at what they've been doing to cancer patients. They poison them until they can barely eat and then caloric restriction slows/stops the cancer growth. Why not just tell them to eat less? Oh, because then you couldn't charge $10k per day.

      • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Snow on Tuesday April 09 2019, @04:06PM (10 children)

        by Snow (1601) on Tuesday April 09 2019, @04:06PM (#826854) Journal

        Once upon a time, there was a rich asshole named Steve Jobs. He was so rich that he could buy stainless steel mega-yachts and things like that, but was also such an asshole that he refused to help support his own daughter.

        One day, this asshole got cancer. He was sooo smart that instead of getting proper medical treatment (that he could have easily afforded) he decided to pursue 'alternative treatments' like having his ass filled with various liquids, 'healings', and naturopathic remedies.

        Then one day he died because all those 'alternative treatments' were bullshit.

        And the world was a better place.

        The end.

        • (Score: 0, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 09 2019, @04:26PM (8 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 09 2019, @04:26PM (#826876)

          What basis do you have for saying he would have been better off with the non-"alternative" treatments?

          • (Score: 4, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 09 2019, @05:38PM (6 children)

            by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 09 2019, @05:38PM (#826936)

            What basis do you have for saying he would have been better off with the non-"alternative" treatments?

            It's called "science." And it works, you sniveling little bitch!

            • (Score: 0, Disagree) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 09 2019, @06:33PM (4 children)

              by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 09 2019, @06:33PM (#826985)

              I'm sure you think it is science, but if you link to an example you will find NHST (fake science). So please do link to what you think is science.

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 09 2019, @07:02PM (1 child)

                by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 09 2019, @07:02PM (#827015)

                I'm sure you think it is science, but if you link to an example you will find NHST (fake science). So please do link to what you think is science.

                You first, you whiny little bitch.

                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 09 2019, @08:43PM

                  by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 09 2019, @08:43PM (#827080)

                  No link.

              • (Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 09 2019, @07:24PM (1 child)

                by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 09 2019, @07:24PM (#827027)

                Oh yeah!

                You tell 'em, Tiger!

                "Science" is complete bullshit! Nothing good ever came from that steaming pile of crap!

                God provides all we need and all we ever will need. That's why he created us -- so he could take care of us, because he loves each and every one of us.

                We don't need any fucking science, because it's all a load of crap! amirite?

                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 09 2019, @08:46PM

                  by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 09 2019, @08:46PM (#827081)

                  No link plus a gratuitous strawman (fitting to defend NHST with more strawman fallacies)

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 09 2019, @10:18PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 09 2019, @10:18PM (#827140)

              Among sciences there is one called statistics. It says that if the official effectiveness of cures is rated best for 'scientific' treatments, then such a fact must be reflected OFTEN in your own anecdotal experience. So if you form an opinion based on impossible to fudge direct experience, while this opinion is NOT necessarily correct for one guy, it will be correct enough on average.

          • (Score: 2) by ElizabethGreene on Wednesday April 10 2019, @08:27PM

            by ElizabethGreene (6748) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday April 10 2019, @08:27PM (#827606) Journal

            There is no scientific basis. There is a possibility that the 9 month delay in initiating treatment allowed the to expand beyond the confines of the organ. If that was the case then that significantly effected his survival probability. For surgical treatment of that type of tumor contained in the organ there is an 87% five year survival rate. Once it escapes those drop precipitously to a median survival of 27 months.

            Unless his family chooses to release his medical records that will remain a known unknown. It's a slow growing tumor, so it's quite possible that the cat was already out of the bag. If it were contained I feel like he was a pretty smart guy and would have taken the 87% shot at surgery. I could be wrong.

        • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Gaaark on Tuesday April 09 2019, @05:42PM

          by Gaaark (41) on Tuesday April 09 2019, @05:42PM (#826937) Journal

          Yep!
          As I said before, "How's the collection of ALL those Billions of dollars going for you NOW Stevie!"

          Hurt people like crazy to the point they'd be glad to see you die (like Billy Bob Gates) but Hey! You're the richest guy in the Funiverse!

          And still, no one gives a shit about you.

          Whats. the. point?

          --
          --- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---