Medicare-for-all' means long waits for poor care, and Americans won't go for it once they learn thes

It is true that healthcare is highly regulated in the US, but it is also regulated in other developed nations and they pay far less in administrative costs than the US does and far less in total costs than the US. Also, we do need some healthcare regulations because we are talking about people's lives here, and its enraging to every family if a loved one is killed or made even sicker in a hospital. Even with our regulations, medical malpractice is still incredibly rampant. Most of this administration doesn't come from government regulations but stems from complex hospital pricing system, and complex insurance coverage plans along with which providers they have to cover. In addition hospitals over a massive patchwork of price deductions for individual insurance companies that have to be renegotiated yearly. This government regulation + private bureaucracy is why the US pays far more in administration than even government-run healthcare systems. Anyway, thats about regulations. Lets look at your McHospital idea.

The problem with your McHospital idea is that there has been a healthcare free market for decades and this has never happened. Other developed nations have public hospitals which provide very cost-effective care, but the US doesn't have this. We do have Kaiser healthcare, which is a little like your idea, but they can't cover every possible medical option, still have to pay market prices to doctors and healthcare middlemen. They are a lot cheaper than other hospitals, but are still a lot more expensive than other developed nations.

 

WHY would anyone in the industry change it when they have a blank check to charge whatever the market bears?

I used to work for a state run hospital and they were forced to become self-funded in the 1990s, which was easy to do when prices were rising even before Obamacare which did absolutely nothing to make it "Affordable care." In fact, it created greater DEMAND.

The SUPPLY of services needs to be increased.

Steve

 

You're quite wrong. Plenty of nations have had nationalised healthcare for many decades, with spectacularly good results. I live in one such, and depend upon our public health entirely. NO ONE WAITS, when their condition warrants immediate treatment. NO ONE, EVER. You only wait when your condition is non-life threatening. And that's just as it should be. Demanding immediate attention for non-life threatening conditions is a luxury, and therefore should be paid for. You can still do that here, you simply buy private health insurance and take your chances with a private hospital.

It's also worth reminding the naysayers (who are almost always conservatives) that public health is a great equaliser. When NO ONE can claim to have been impoverished by a health crisis, they have one less excuse for remaining in poverty. And you'll note that in countries with public health, the welfare dollars are usually better also .. that's another great equaliser. You can't hide your apathy and laziness.

 

None of which happened in our Nationalised Health nations. Where do you guys get these ideas?

 

Yes, we do have a choice. We can choose to buy private health insurance and use private doctors in private hospitals.

 

Okay how much better is the care you get there? How much does it cost? When have you used it?

 

No idea, I would never use private health insurance or a private hospital - I don't regard myself as special, and deserving of immediate attention for a headache. Measured technically though, our public hospitals are better equipped and have higher staff ratios than our private hospitals. Our maternal and infant mortality rates are also lower in our public hospitals (and considerably lower than in the US) because our public hospital birthing units use midwives, and only involve doctors for actual medical problems. Midwife led birthing units always do better on the health and safety of women and babies, because midwives don't interfere unless necessary, and support natural childbirth.

 

you're not special enough to pay for your own services? Did this make sense to you

is it a cultural thing in Australia to think that paying your own way is somehow saying you're special?

If so that would explain a lot of the discrepancies we see between Australian medicine and US medicine.

then how do private hospitals stay in business?

If you can get something better without paying, why would anyone pay for something that is not as good? I makes no sense.

this could be a difference in definition. How does Australia define infant mortality and does it differ from the way the United States defines it?

I don't know anything about this. and I'm not going to trust you because you have a tendency to make claims you cannot support.

 

But we already have a large supply of healthcare services. What I'm telling you is that healthcare is one of those areas with low price elasticity and doesn't function like a true open market. We need some kind of price regulations other countries have, or a public option to complete with private hospitals. What you are outlining is basically Kaiser Insurance but they haven't taken over the world. However universal healthcare systems are now in every other developed nation and achieve even lower costs than Kaiser.

 

It might be for democrats, but it's an old topic that has already been tried with obamacare.

Democrats will lose if they make healthcare an issue. We've already seen the results of their stupid ideas, and they know this. They know exactly where that's leading which is Pelosi once more telling us that we'll have to wait to see what's in it to find out.

 

The simple fact that "medicare for all" single payer means a 40% cut in payment to providers across the board right from the beginning, and you understand why.

 

And yet the Alaskan Palin family went to Canada for their healthcare???

 

Good healthcare providers will simply opt out of taking a 40% cut in their salaries. What these lefties don't want to admit is that countries with single-payer insurance have often had to create two-tier systems where the hoi polloi get the bare minimum, and people with real insurance actually get health care.

We all know they won't be happy with being shuttled off to the welfare version of a hospital, while the "1%" get sent to proper hospitals. They know that this double tier is what happens, but conflate the two figures whenever arguing for their single payer utopia.

 

So I guess moving to Canada is an option for those who don't like it in the US.

 

Been there, done that. No one wants that plan!

 

.....until they head for the voting booth!

 

While these statements may be true it only applies to people without insurance or without quality insurance. Rather than trying to fix the problem by throwing out insurance companies or forcing everyone who has insurance to change to a government plan, why don't we try and figure how to cover those who are under-insured or without insurance?

 

Yes poor health service is of course the outcome of all the rest of the first world nations without our wonderful health system.

Those poor nations all have average life spans decades less then our average life span..........LOL

Nonsense on top of nonsense as we paid top dollars for very high ranking of 35 repeat 35 of the world nations.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_...#List_by_the_World_Health_Organization_(2015)

 

For the life of me I can't figure out why people think health insurance is a health plan. Signing up to a gym is a health plan....health insurance is not signing up to daily hospital visits. S**t costs so much because the leeches use hospitals like health plans.

I don't have health insurance. I don't need health insurance. All the money I have saved by not pissing it away on health insurance I've turned into a seven figures (liquid) by investing that money.

I don't need medicare, medicaid, social security, obamacare....nothing. Don't want it, don't need it, and not signing up.

 

Well we are talking about Japanese and British people.

 

Well, lets hope you don't need too much medical care either. Money can go fast if you end up in the hospital. I have a friend who recently had a seven figure medical expense. He was glad he had insurance.

Good for you for doing it on your own!

Rich

 

Is that your best answer to the healthcare debate?

 

When all you eat is **** every day, and your cook says its the best **** in town, you will "learn" to love that ****. Same goes for crappy healthcare, I am sure most people loved their blood letting once a week in the dark ages, doesn't mean it was good care.

 

No that was my answer to those who seem to think people in other countries have it better, people who think other countries do things better than the US. If a person likes how they do things in another country why not move to that country that is doing it better. If things are so bad here why do we have 30 million illegal immigrants living here. Why don't they just pass through and move on to Canada?

 

1) People who think they shouldn't have to wait for non-essential medical treatment tend to want to pay for private healthcare. It's strictly a vanity thing.

2) Absolutely. Regular folk are happy to wait their turn, and use the public system that we pay for (with our tax levy).

3) Private hospitals stay in business because there are enough vain people to keep them afloat. They are often underfunded and run down, though.

4) See 1). You'd be amazed at just how many people consider immediate treatment (and oddly, having a private hospital room) is more important than the quality of the care. Some people wouldn't dream of staying in a public hospital ward.

5) Do you know what 'mortality' means? Maternal and Infant DEATHS. And your stats are around the worst in the First World. And yes, it has been directly attributed to your heavy intervention (epidurals, c-sections, etc) rates, and your lack of focus on natural childbirth under midwife care.