32.6 Trillion Dollars for Ten Years....

[poke2001]

I know @07pilt will discredit the source, because “his team” didn’t write it, but he won’t be able to discredit the substance of this article.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.na...tality-deceptive-statistic-scott-w-atlas/amp/

 

[anon_xl72qcu5isp39]

Capacity is where it falls down.

That will get worse the longer you get down the road by making it less attractive to be a Dr.

Google U.K. Doctors leaving.

I've heard for years that the Dr's just can't take it any more. At some point perhaps they don't have to be the highest paid medical professionals anywhere. Specialists and institutional health care is making so much money right now it's frankly obscene.

How does our usage of pain killers and the associated costs compare?

Off the charts probably, but Pilt's #'s are similar to #'s I saw years ago before the current opiod epidemic. I'd bet if opiods had to funnel through a national pharma database it would cut it waaaay down.

He’s finding data to prove a point...but his data is flawed. Every country calculates these rates differently. It’s bullshit data.

How do you know this? Any alternative data?

Is there any data that you WOULD use, or should we just assume any data that contradicts your opinion will be met with "Bullshit!"

Do you pay the health insurance premiums for you and your family?

 

[aix_xpert]

Well, I just hope I never need elective surgery before this is implemented.

 

[CSCOTTOSUPOKES]

I know @07pilt will discredit the source, because “his team” didn’t write it, but he won’t be able to discredit the substance of this article.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.na...tality-deceptive-statistic-scott-w-atlas/amp/

Pom poms got it...editorials to twist government stats lol to fit a narrative.

Go Team Go!!!!...right? Haha

 

[07pilt]

 

[poke2001]

Pom poms got it...editorials to twist government stats lol to fit a narrative.

Go Team Go!!!!...right? Haha

Dispute it, dipshit.

 

[07pilt]

You are wrong.

Damn that was easy.

Just tell me one data point that is measured differently across countries.

 

[poke2001]

Just tell me one data point that is measured differently across countries.

All of them likely.

 

[07pilt]

At the risk of giving a very simplistic answer: We are soft and spoiled and we have a lot of greedy people that will help you get addicted to the pain free life.

More soft and spoiled and more greedy than all the other countries by an order of magnitude?

 

[07pilt]

All of them likely.

Healthcare costs: no
Mortality: no
Life expectancy: no

evidence is overwhelming that we pay more for out healthcare and get below average outcomes.

 

[anon_xl72qcu5isp39]

Sounds like a helluva good deal to me:

https://www.nationalreview.com/news/study-medicare-for-all-would-cost-32-6-trillion-over-ten-years/

Why is it that these conservative essays always put a number on the alternative plan's costs, but never include the costs of the status quo. i.e. premiums, private pay, etc? I can't imagine anybody making a business decision based on costs but not savings or revenue. That's exactly what that article does.

 

[poke2001]

Healthcare costs: no
Mortality: no
Life expectancy: no

evidence is overwhelming that we pay more for out healthcare and get below average outcomes.

Wrong, wrong, wrong.

 

[anon_xl72qcu5isp39]

You understand that neither of the two teams care about fiscal responsibility.

Plenty of people on both "teams" do care. You've seen the conservative national debt clocks and billboards and heard dems raise hell at the tax cuts for that reason.

 

[anon_xl72qcu5isp39]

Wrong, wrong, wrong.

Provide some evidence, evidence, evidence. "Bullshit" doesn't mean anything. This is my bitch with you people -- the guy just put some great numbers up that show what's happening and you vapor lock with "bullshit" and nothing else.

If you just want the country to make decisions based on total ignorance then say so -- that seems to be what you're advocating.

 

[poke2001]

Provide some evidence, evidence, evidence. "Bullshit" doesn't mean anything. This is my bitch with you people -- the guy just put some great numbers up that show what's happening and you vapor lock with "bullshit" and nothing else.

If you just want the country to make decisions based on total ignorance then say so -- that seems to be what you're advocating.

Read the article I posted. It explains how these numbers are easily manipulated to prove a point the left tries to make.

 

[Bitter Creek]

More soft and spoiled and more greedy than all the other countries by an order of magnitude?

If you care my healthcare costs to a lot of guys my age, my costs are going to look great because I literally haven't had an issue that pushed me to a healthcare professional for care in almost 10 years. I don't overdrink, I don't smoke, I work out, eat relatively clean and get plenty of sleep.

The fact is, the healthcare costs of the average person is heavily impacted by their lifestyle.

 

[anon_xl72qcu5isp39]

Read the article I posted. It explains how these numbers are easily manipulated to prove a point the left tries to make.

Oh it makes some good points, but doesn't go beyond burning down someone else's numbers.

Why don't you or the National Review post some data that shows we're doing it right, or that some alternative data is better suited for making policy decisions? And some of their points are totally subject to further analysis, too.

That's a principal bitch of mine -- you guys seem to think you can advocate for a status quo simply by saying other people's ideas are wrong. Well, get on board. Come up with something better instead of defending the shitty. Of course you can rip an international set of data, that's easy.

 

[anon_xl72qcu5isp39]

If you care my healthcare costs to a lot of guys my age, my costs are going to look great because I literally haven't had an issue that pushed me to a healthcare professional for care in almost 10 years. I don't overdrink, I don't smoke, I work out, eat relatively clean and get plenty of sleep.

The fact is, the healthcare costs of the average person is heavily impacted by their lifestyle.

Which is why we should have a single payer with reel incentives to be healthy. I'm not really up for being in a health care premium pool with obese smokers, either. I want to see some accurate projections regarding health care costs of non smokers in a certain weight range. I'll bet it's way more affordable.

 

[poke2001]

Oh it makes some good points, but doesn't go beyond burning down someone else's numbers.

Why don't you or the National Review post some data that shows we're doing it right, or that some alternative data is better suited for making policy decisions? And some of their points are totally subject to further analysis, too.

That's a principal bitch of mine -- you guys seem to think you can advocate for a status quo simply by saying other people's ideas are wrong. Well, get on board. Come up with something better instead of defending the shitty. Of course you can rip an international set of data, that's easy.

Because the data doesn’t ****ing exist. Each country reports their own however they want to.

 

[poke2001]

Which is why we should have a single payer with reel incentives to be healthy. I'm not really up for being in a health care premium pool with obese smokers, either. I want to see some accurate projections regarding health care costs of non smokers in a certain weight range. I'll bet it's way more affordable.

How about private insurance with the government completely out of the way?

 

[anon_xl72qcu5isp39]

Because the data doesn’t ****ing exist. Each country reports their own however they want to.

Bullshit, you're wrong. (We can do this all day, can't we?)

First, that article's about infant mortality, not all data.

It's almost like you're against basic information upon which an informed decision can be made. Are you against all change? Or just change with health care? What do you want, the status quo?

 

[Bitter Creek]

Which is why we should have a single payer with reel incentives to be healthy. I'm not really up for being in a health care premium pool with obese smokers, either. I want to see some accurate projections regarding health care costs of non smokers in a certain weight range. I'll bet it's way more affordable.

To make sure I am understanding you correctly, you are saying that you would like to see a country to country comparison of healthy lifestyle people. Correct?

 

[anon_xl72qcu5isp39]

How about private insurance with the government completely out of the way?

What would that cost?

Do you pay you and your family's premiums?

 

[poke2001]

Bullshit, you're wrong. (We can do this all day, can't we?)

First, that article's about infant mortality, not all data.

It's almost like you're against basic information upon which an informed decision can be made. Are you against all change? Or just change with health care? What do you want, the status quo?

The same basic argument can be made against each data set.

 

[anon_xl72qcu5isp39]

To make sure I am understanding you correctly, you are saying that you would like to see a country to country comparison of healthy lifestyle people. Correct?

No, I want to see what they are with the healthy lifestyle vs. general population. But I wouldn't reject your data model, it sounds informative too.

The same basic argument can be made against each data set.

No it can't. (I can do that too.)

So what would pure insurance costs be?

 

[07pilt]

I know @07pilt will discredit the source, because “his team” didn’t write it, but he won’t be able to discredit the substance of this article.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.na...tality-deceptive-statistic-scott-w-atlas/amp/

1)Underreporting and unreliability of infant-mortality data from other countries undermine any comparisons with the United States.
This is probably true, the US probably does have better infant mortality reporting than Sierra Leone. However the US doesn't have different reporting standards than the OECD, and we still bring up the rear. First World Countries > USA > Third World Countries.
2)Gross differences in the fundamental definition of “live birth” invalidate comparisons of early neonatal death rates.
Even if you count stillbirths in your statistics the US still lags the developed world.

3) An additional major reason for the high infant-mortality rate of the United States is its high percentage of preterm births, relative to the other developed countries.
So the US has high infant mortality because prenatal care sucks? Congratulations.
4)Throughout the developed world, and regardless of the health-care system, infant-mortality rates are far worse among minority populations, and the U.S. has much more diversity of race and ethnicity than any other developed nation.
So the US has high infant mortality because minorities get worse care? Congratulations.

 

[07pilt]

If you care my healthcare costs to a lot of guys my age, my costs are going to look great because I literally haven't had an issue that pushed me to a healthcare professional for care in almost 10 years. I don't overdrink, I don't smoke, I work out, eat relatively clean and get plenty of sleep.

The fact is, the healthcare costs of the average person is heavily impacted by their lifestyle.

Why is our lifestyle so much worse than other countries?

 

[Bitter Creek]

Why is our lifestyle so much worse than other countries?

My guess is our relative wealth and lack of hardship.

The logic sounds backwards, but I think that is at least one of the root causes.

 

[07pilt]

My guess is our relative wealth and lack of hardship.

The logic sounds backwards, but I think that is at least one of the root causes.

The median Norwegian has more wealth and less hardship than an American.

 

[Bitter Creek]

The median Norwegian has more wealth and less hardship than an American.

I have to plead ignorance to the life and times of the median Norwegian. So, I'll take your word for it.

 

[ctrawick]

How many of you have actually lived in a country with a single payer system? Did you experience how great it was? How short were the lines?

I will wait for the answers. Thank you.

Oh, and I am not talking about military service....

 

[anon_xl72qcu5isp39]

How many of you have actually lived in a country with a single payer system? Did you experience how great it was? How short were the lines?

I will wait for the answers. Thank you.

Oh, and I am not talking about military service....

I have a family member that lived in Europe for a few years. He had some health issues pop up and liked the health care and is pretty opinionated about how bad ours is.

I have a client that had to wait nearly 3 mos. to get into a pancreas specialist. The thing about that pancreas is when it goes south, it doesn't wait for three months, ya know?

@poke2001 so far in this thread, you refuse to accept any data, refuse to bring your own to the table, and refuse to discuss the other side of the coin regarding single payer costs, i.e. what the costs of all the health insurance profits and premiums would be over the same time span as the projections for medicare for all. What's up with that?

Do you pay you and your family's premiums?

So what would pure insurance costs be?

 

[trapped_in_tx]

Yeah, but why do you think the US is different in that respect? Could it be the healthcare system?

Or could it be regulation that has been crafted over decades by lobbyists from big pharma and big insurance to create a quagmire that benefits them at the expense of others?

I'm an engineer. Give me a root-cause analysis which shows that the macro-level philosophy for health care in this country is fundamentally flawed and the cause of all the effects measured in your pretty charts.

Otherwise, I'm going with corrupt politicians and broken regulations because IMHO that's the far more likely cause.

 

[anon_xl72qcu5isp39]

Or could it be regulation that has been crafted over decades by lobbyists from big pharma and big insurance to create a quagmire that benefits them at the expense of others?

I'm an engineer. Give me a root-cause analysis which shows that the macro-level philosophy for health care in this country is fundamentally flawed and the cause of all the effects measured in your pretty charts.

Otherwise, I'm going with corrupt politicians and broken regulations because IMHO that's the far more likely cause.

What would this root cause analysis look like?

 

[07pilt]

Or could it be regulation that has been crafted over decades by lobbyists from big pharma and big insurance to create a quagmire that benefits them at the expense of others?

I'm an engineer. Give me a root-cause analysis which shows that the macro-level philosophy for health care in this country is fundamentally flawed and the cause of all the effects measured in your pretty charts.

Otherwise, I'm going with corrupt politicians and broken regulations because IMHO that's the far more likely cause.

Problem: We pay way more for healthcare than any other country. We don't receive health outcomes commensurate with the amount we pay.
Cause: Our healthcare system is a profit center for any number of parasites and there is no way to rein them in with our current philosophy of health care delivery mediated by private insurers.
Corrective Action: Eliminate healthcare as a profit center for parasites by mediating the the delivery of health care by one single payer with the bargaining power necessary to eliminate the excesses of the system.

 

[trapped_in_tx]

there is no way to rein them in with our current philosophy of health care delivery mediated by private insurers.

Proof?

 

[Alpha Poke]

I've heard for years that the Dr's just can't take it any more. At some point perhaps they don't have to be the highest paid medical professionals anywhere. Specialists and institutional health care is making so much money right now it's frankly obscene.

It’s a pretty significant issue, mainly with the mid to older physicians (obviously). It’s important enough that they’ve added a leg to the triple aim to capture ‘physician satisfaction.’

Most of reimbursement modernization starts to shift significant funding/incentives back to primary care by keeping patients healthy. Still a work in progress though.

How are you defining institutional care? If it’s what I think you’re meaning, your assessment isn’t accurate. Most systems run on about 2 and 3% margins. That rivals grocery stores. It’s rare to find a system that has more than 3 months of cash on hand.

 

[TPOKE]

The government in the US spends more on healthcare per person than countries that have single payer or nationalized health care.

Aussies pay high taxes to get it, though.

 

[TPOKE]

With all these charts I can't tell if you're channeling your inner NZ or CSCOTT.

I was wrong, Pilt is NZ's sock puppet, not JD.

 

[poke2001]

What would that cost?

Do you pay you and your family's premiums?

Government 100% out of the way? I’d gues

I have a family member that lived in Europe for a few years. He had some health issues pop up and liked the health care and is pretty opinionated about how bad ours is.

I have a client that had to wait nearly 3 mos. to get into a pancreas specialist. The thing about that pancreas is when it goes south, it doesn't wait for three months, ya know?

@poke2001 so far in this thread, you refuse to accept any data, refuse to bring your own to the table, and refuse to discuss the other side of the coin regarding single payer costs, i.e. what the costs of all the health insurance profits and premiums would be over the same time span as the projections for medicare for all. What's up with that?

i called out bullshit data for being bullshit. That doesn’t require me to provide data at all. It wasn’t me trying to debunk the OP with bad data.