US Credit Rating Downgrade

[Septic]

what fully employed person is going bankrupt from basic health care?

I mean I guess it depends on what you mean by basic. I seriously doubt too many people are going broke going in for the routine check ups and minor care procedures or seeing a specialist thats one thing. If you mean life saving care from extremely complicated diseases/cancers, or dealing with the consequences of a life of terrible health decisions that is a completely different thing.

I am not going to think we need to fix the health care of a nation if the main failure is the people taking care of themselves.

It's all included.

Insurance doesn't cost what it costs because of common colds.

It's bewildering that anyone would even try to prop up or defend our for profit health care system given the costs and outcomes.

 

[LouderVol]

It's all included.

Insurance doesn't cost what it costs because of common colds.

It's bewildering that anyone would even try to prop up or defend our for profit health care system given the costs and outcomes.

that whole study comes back to one thing. The quality of the patients. Everything is easier when you don't have crap patients.

Access would be a lot easier if the system wasn't choked with patients in there for 90% preventable issues if they weren't lard butts.
Care process would be a lot simpler if doctors weren't having to go through and figure out 50 different possible diagnoses due to all the pre existing conditions. Would also simplify prescription plans when they aren't having to deal with multiple prescriptions for every patient.
administrative efficiency, you tone down all the possible patients and issues, and the admin can get better/more efficient. when every case is complicated and dealing all the government regulations that takes time. Simplifying the process and patients would greatly help.
equity isn't even a health related item, so yay to SJWs for throwing it in there. But its a lot easier to be more "equitable" when you don't have as many minorities to deal with.
Health care outcomes again circles back to quality of patient. Doesn't matter if you fix the cancer, lard butt is still going to have heart issues to deal with.

we pretty much have the worst starting point for any of the nations considered.
we are 4x the size of the next closest, its common sense the bigger you are the less efficient your overall system is going to be. beyond just being the biggest, we have a large population that all 10 of the other nations combined by 30+ million, which is a larger population than 6 of the nations on that list. The scale of what we are dealing with just from a pure numbers stand point is staggering compared to those nations. Expecting the US to be as efficient in a population related item as Norway and New Zealand with 5 million people a piece is loading the scales from the start.
None of those nations have a similar "equity issue" like we do. Meaning they don't have minorities to deal with. Our minority population alone would be the second largest population on that list after the US. again its unreasonable to expect us to be as efficient, and you can read affordable, when we are dealing with a much more complicated population, all with their own unique health issues.
I think only Canada is even within 8% of our obesity rate. I don't think its any surprise that 2 of the three top performers have the two lowest obesity rates on that list. Australia is the third highest, but when you take their rate and multiply it by their tiny population, they have as many obese people as Alabama does. If our issues were the size of Alabama, I am sure we could handle them a lot better.

and your chart even shows what I have been saying. throwing more money at the issue clearly won't fix it, as we are already the leaders on expenditure. I have yet to see anyone address how we are actually going to decrease costs. The only solution so far thrown out is for the government to subsidize more, when just moves the cost from those using the health care system, to those not using the health care system. there is absolutely zero way to argue that getting our government more involved will save us money.

 

[Septic]

that whole study comes back to one thing. The quality of the patients. Everything is easier when you don't have crap patients.

Access would be a lot easier if the system wasn't choked with patients in there for 90% preventable issues if they weren't lard butts.
Care process would be a lot simpler if doctors weren't having to go through and figure out 50 different possible diagnoses due to all the pre existing conditions. Would also simplify prescription plans when they aren't having to deal with multiple prescriptions for every patient.
administrative efficiency, you tone down all the possible patients and issues, and the admin can get better/more efficient. when every case is complicated and dealing all the government regulations that takes time. Simplifying the process and patients would greatly help.
equity isn't even a health related item, so yay to SJWs for throwing it in there. But its a lot easier to be more "equitable" when you don't have as many minorities to deal with.
Health care outcomes again circles back to quality of patient. Doesn't matter if you fix the cancer, lard butt is still going to have heart issues to deal with.

we pretty much have the worst starting point for any of the nations considered.
we are 4x the size of the next closest, its common sense the bigger you are the less efficient your overall system is going to be. beyond just being the biggest, we have a large population that all 10 of the other nations combined by 30+ million, which is a larger population than 6 of the nations on that list. The scale of what we are dealing with just from a pure numbers stand point is staggering compared to those nations. Expecting the US to be as efficient in a population related item as Norway and New Zealand with 5 million people a piece is loading the scales from the start.
None of those nations have a similar "equity issue" like we do. Meaning they don't have minorities to deal with. Our minority population alone would be the second largest population on that list after the US. again its unreasonable to expect us to be as efficient, and you can read affordable, when we are dealing with a much more complicated population, all with their own unique health issues.
I think only Canada is even within 8% of our obesity rate. I don't think its any surprise that 2 of the three top performers have the two lowest obesity rates on that list. Australia is the third highest, but when you take their rate and multiply it by their tiny population, they have as many obese people as Alabama does. If our issues were the size of Alabama, I am sure we could handle them a lot better.

and your chart even shows what I have been saying. throwing more money at the issue clearly won't fix it, as we are already the leaders on expenditure. I have yet to see anyone address how we are actually going to decrease costs. The only solution so far thrown out is for the government to subsidize more, when just moves the cost from those using the health care system, to those not using the health care system. there is absolutely zero way to argue that getting our government more involved will save us money.

Weird how every other 1st world country seems to have figured it out.

I hear you about us being "bigger" but the amount we spend per-capita is so much more, the excuses about scale cease to hold water. Every year I get a letter from our provider showing my group health plan is 15-30% more expensive, that deductibles are up and coverages are down. As an employer, I eat those increases to remain competitive in a high skill workplace. I know my competitors are as well. But they're starting to crack and contributions are going down which will lead to employees having to take on more of the risk cost themselves. I also see that companies like NCH, UHC, Humana and BCBS are absolutely printing money. Ultimately, these costs are going to make it down to rank-and-file worker - THEN and probably only then will American's start demanding change.

No one is suggesting it will be easy or convenient, but the pricing for the service we get is unsustainable.

The cost of Insulin is $98 in America and $10 in Europe. What does scale say about that?

 

[Sandman 423]

The costs are shown per capita.

We are getting raped in the US over healthcare costs and as he noted, our outcomes aren't better.

It amazes me that with all of the divisiveness of US politics that this isn't something everyone can find common ground on.

you can find common ground. You just have to be willing to compromise and most aren't

 

[LouderVol]

Weird how every other 1st world country seems to have figured it out.

I hear you about us being "bigger" but the amount we spend per-capita is so much more, the excuses about scale cease to hold water. Every year I get a letter from our provider showing my group health plan is 15-30% more expensive, that deductibles are up and coverages are down. As an employer, I eat those increases to remain competitive in a high skill workplace. I know my competitors are as well. But they're starting to crack and contributions are going down which will lead to employees having to take on more of the risk cost themselves. I also see that companies like NCH, UHC, Humana and BCBS are absolutely printing money. Ultimately, these costs are going to make it down to rank-and-file worker - THEN and probably only then will American's start demanding change.

No one is suggesting it will be easy or convenient, but the pricing for the service we get is unsustainable.

The cost of Insulin is $98 in America and $10 in Europe. What does scale say about that?

Did you forget economics 101. supply and DEMAND. scale has plenty to say about costs.
and that $10 is a subsidized amount that the UK controls by entering deals with certain pharma corps to distribute only their drug. if you think our government is capable of doing that fairly I have ocean front property to sell you in Denver Colorado.
Do you really think our government is capable or willing to take away money from Pharma's? They literally just locked down our entire nation, pushed an experimental drug, gave those pharmas guaranteed contracts, regardless of efficacy or delivery, voided all of their liability from said experimental drug, supported measures to force people to take said experimental drug. again I have ocean front property in Denver for you if you think the politicians are going to turn their backs on big pharma.

and btw I love this whole argument. It isn't about actually helping people be healthy. Its just lets make it cheaper to be unhealthy. and by cheaper I mean just get the tax payers to pay for it instead of actually decreasing costs. 'Merika!

We are from the government, and we are here to help.

 

[Septic]

Did you forget economics 101. supply and DEMAND. scale has plenty to say about costs.
and that $10 is a subsidized amount that the UK controls by entering deals with certain pharma corps to distribute only their drug. if you think our government is capable of doing that fairly I have ocean front property to sell you in Denver Colorado.
Do you really think our government is capable or willing to take away money from Pharma's? They literally just locked down our entire nation, pushed an experimental drug, gave those pharmas guaranteed contracts, regardless of efficacy or delivery, voided all of their liability from said experimental drug, supported measures to force people to take said experimental drug. again I have ocean front property in Denver for you if you think the politicians are going to turn their backs on big pharma.

and btw I love this whole argument. It isn't about actually helping people be healthy. Its just lets make it cheaper to be unhealthy. and by cheaper I mean just get the tax payers to pay for it instead of actually decreasing costs. 'Merika!

We are from the government, and we are here to help.

Well, clearly you're satisfied with the status quo.

Paying more, receiving less with below average outcomes compared to every single 1st world peer.

Or do you pay more?

Are you an employer? Or is your healthcare a benefit supplied by and subsidized by your employer? Something else?

 

[LouderVol]

Well, clearly you're satisfied with the status quo.

Paying more, receiving less with below average outcomes compared to every single 1st world peer.

Or do you pay more?

Are you an employer? Or is your healthcare a benefit supplied by and subsidized by your employer? Something else?

nope I am an employee. and I have been an employee long enough to see to see the effect of what you are pushing.

I remember my rates more than doubling after Obama meddled. I haven't checked in a couple months, but I am paying at least $500 a month more due to that crapfest, than I otherwise would. I was one of those people he lied to about keeping his doctor. you have offered zero reasoning as to how or why this time it will actually be better.

I am not fine with the status quo, I have offered several possible changes. You just ignore them because its not your idea of sinking deeper into socialism.

its pretty clear that the government getting involved, and removing options doesn't work.

If we are going to try and shake up the system I want to try something completely different, not just keep doubling down on what we have been trying that has failed multiple times.

 

[Septic]

nope I am an employee. and I have been an employee long enough to see to see the effect of what you are pushing.

I remember my rates more than doubling after Obama meddled. I haven't checked in a couple months, but I am paying at least $500 a month more due to that crapfest, than I otherwise would. I was one of those people he lied to about keeping his doctor. you have offered zero reasoning as to how or why this time it will actually be better.

I am not fine with the status quo, I have offered several possible changes. You just ignore them because its not your idea of sinking deeper into socialism.

its pretty clear that the government getting involved, and removing options doesn't work.

If we are going to try and shake up the system I want to try something completely different, not just keep doubling down on what we have been trying that has failed multiple times.

I don't recall seeing any solutions you've put forward that address cost and outcomes. Only that any solution that government could possibly offer is a non-starter with you. Let me ask you, do public schools give you the same heartburn?

I'm generally a free market advocate - companies should live or die without interference form the .gov (with certain limited exceptions.) I'm simply stating that the current rate of increase in cost with decreases in benefits is unsustainable.

 

[hog88]

Need to change the title of the thread to "Septic bitches about healthcare costs".

 

[LouderVol]

I don't recall seeing any solutions you've put forward that address cost and outcomes. Only that any solution that government could possibly offer is a non-starter with you. Let me ask you, do public schools give you the same heartburn?

I'm generally a free market advocate - companies should live or die without interference form the .gov (with certain limited exceptions.) I'm simply stating that the current rate of increase in cost with decreases in benefits is unsustainable.

implement a system that encourages actual preventive care, instead of just trying to medicate it. Removes the direct prescription costs for many, and reduces the costs of future visits. ***

remove government regulations beyond ones that directly correspond to individuals safety. No more protection and bail outs for the pharma corps, and insurers. remove government requirements on what policies are available, and where.

part of the last one would be to clean up the government interference in the drug selection process, the FDA fully runs a protection scheme for the large pharma corps. you could similarly remove some of the recent laws about the governments control of distribution, with Medicare/aid only approving some drugs in some areas, adding an artificial gate to entry for new drugs in an area even after FDA approval. this would also likely lead to more "cures" getting out there instead of just "maintenance" drugs.

history shows that the government trying to fix health care in this nation is a counter productive measure. We all have every reason to believe that further measures would bare the same results, especially because what is being pushed isn't anything new.

***for the first one area I would look at would be allowing insurance providers to be more selective with their rates. No reason a fit person with no preexisting conditions should pay the same as a 500lb diabetic. equity here is screwing over everyone by removing options. that allows your hated insurance companies to charge what they want because they get to assume we are all 500lbs, and unfortunately too many of us are.

if we HAD to have some sort of government mandates on the coverage options I would limit it to direct life saving care or medicines. instead of trying to cover everything for everyone, lets make sure covering the worst cases is actually possible first. there is no reason to start off the health care restructuring as throwing out everything and starting over with everyone covered for everything all at once. They couldn't even run a website to sign up for health insurance, how do you expect them to cover everything? Start small, and smart, and build it up.

 

[theFallGuy]

it's really hard to take someone seriously that looks remarkably like a bird. I just can't stop making the connection