Vermont single payer health insurance

#51
#51
There aren't any large operations that I know of offering a complete level of service for the average consumer, certainly none that provide medical coverage outside of 24 Hour Fitness, LA Fitness, the like. But I have no interest in working for a mickey mouse operation like those ones. They are in a different business than what I seek.
 
#52
#52
milohimself said:
I'm still under 24 so my dad still has me on his HMO plan (Blue Cross Blue Shield), and I went to get this checked out. They took an EKG and didn't see anything unusual, and gave me a prescription for some Prilosec-type medication. It didn't work, so I went back where they told me they have no idea... And that was the end of it. I contacted BCBS and they weren't willing to give me any further treatment.
Click to expand...

You are under 24, with a normal EKG and family history of heart attack after 60... not like, 35... 42?

Yea, I can see why they were unwilling to continue. I am surprised that stress management was not discussed.
 
#53
#53
It wasn't, even though I specifically said that it happened under onsets of stress and asked them what I can do. They seemed hurried to get me my prescription and get me out.
 
#54
#54
milohimself said:
It wasn't, even though I specifically said that it happened under onsets of stress and asked them what I can do. They seemed hurried to get me my prescription and get me out.
Click to expand...

Seems like if they were really concerned with an ulcer that they would have scoped you. Which wouldn't have found anything, so I guess that's why they gave you the script.

Still should have provided counseling for stress, or at least referral.

You are a student, right? Try setting up an appointment to your student psych service and have a sit down to discuss stress management. It *should* be free. Call first, though.
 
#55
#55
I have, my tuition includes a basic level of health coverage, counseling and therapy included, which I took them up on. Either university employees or professionals of my choosing. I took them up on it, just set up a 4 session deal. It helped a lot.
 
#56
#56
volinbham said:
You've yet to explain the "incentive for efficiency" in a single payer system. I know, I know. You believe it is the citizen but why then doesn't that apply to overall government spending. Are you arguing that our Fed govt. is currently efficient at using resources as a result of tax payers?
Click to expand...

An NHS system, by its nature, has a fixed budget every year and has to control costs.

I can give you anecdotal counterpoints, my parents. They have great insurance, and they are pinged around to specialist after specialist for the most mundane ailments - to the limits of their insurance. There are duplication of tests ad infinitum, and my step-father is assuredly one who would NOT rate his care highly in any way, shape, or form. This is also a system which routinely charges $5 per Tylenol, which makes the Pentagon $25 claw hammer look frugal by comparison.

I can say I don't know in detail how the "overall satisfaction" metric is adduced. What we can say is, it excludes about 20% of our population though. Moreover, I'm sure the WHO accounted for this, but it is well known there is "medical monopoly power." People, even in the US, do not "shop around" for doctors or care. They pick one, and said doctor usually has to eat their baby before they consider changing (I know, suddenly every neoliberal on VN will tell us how they shop around rigorously for each and every medical ailment they have - against all the data compiled by the industry). So, even when an NHS system "limits choice" by assigning a General Practioner, this is actually what happens in a fully private system anyway.

And finally, the bottom line to every spin doctored thesis:

single payer = better care for less money.

If this were actually a market what would informed consumers buy?
 
#57
#57
utgibbs said:
An NHS system, by its nature, has a fixed budget every year and has to control costs.

This is as laughable as anything you've ever said.

I can give you anecdotal counterpoints, my parents. They have great insurance, and they are pinged around to specialist after specialist for the most mundane ailments - to the limits of their insurance. There are duplication of tests ad infinitum, and my step-father is assuredly one who would NOT rate his care highly in any way, shape, or form. This is also a system which routinely charges $5 per Tylenol, which makes the Pentagon $25 claw hammer look frugal by comparison.

I can say I don't know in detail how the "overall satisfaction" metric is adduced. What we can say is, it excludes about 20% of our population though. Moreover, I'm sure the WHO accounted for this, but it is well known there is "medical monopoly power." People, even in the US, do not "shop around" for doctors or care. They pick one, and said doctor usually has to eat their baby before they consider changing (I know, suddenly every neoliberal on VN will tell us how they shop around rigorously for each and every medical ailment they have - against all the data compiled by the industry). So, even when an NHS system "limits choice" by assigning a General Practioner, this is actually what happens in a fully private system anyway.

being sure about anything from the WHO is the height of naivete or being in bed with their socialistic propaganda.

And finally, the bottom line to every spin doctored thesis:

single payer = better care for less money.

the bottom line can be there forever and still as wrong as two men humping.

If this were actually a market what would informed consumers buy?
Click to expand...
Informed consumers is clearly a problem with our current system and is an offshoot of the cadillac policies. There is no argument that they must change or become obscenely expensive.
 
#58
#58
BigPapaVol said:
Informed consumers is clearly a problem with our current system and is an offshoot of the cadillac policies. There is no argument that they must change or become obscenely expensive.
Click to expand...

Help me out with the above.

As for your bold in the Quote - I don't like to just say "wrong on every point" but quite frankly, in this case, it fits.

Just to skip to the meat, please show me a more expensive health care system than ours. I'll even let you use the countries that guarantee coverage for all citizens....
 
#59
#59
utgibbs said:
Help me out with the above.

As for your bold in the Quote - I don't like to just say "wrong on every point" but quite frankly, in this case, it fits.

Just to skip to the meat, please show me a more expensive health care system than ours. I'll even let you use the countries that guarantee coverage for all citizens....
Click to expand...

who said that ours is anything but expensive? Care to help understand why? Maybe that's lost on you.
 
#60
#60
BigPapaVol said:
who said that ours is anything but expensive? Care to help understand why? Maybe that's lost on you.
Click to expand...

Oh, I understand why:

1. The private system has no incentive for efficiency.
2. Health care is not a market (or a systemic market failure if you prefer that lingo).
 
#61
#61
utgibbs said:
Oh, I understand why:

1. The private system has no incentive for efficiency.
2. Health care is not a market (or a systemic market failure if you prefer that lingo).
Click to expand...

And what do you think is the reason for that? Serious question.
 
#62
#62
utgibbs said:
Oh, I understand why:

1. The private system has no incentive for efficiency.
2. Health care is not a market (or a systemic market failure if you prefer that lingo).
Click to expand...

Legislatively limiting competition is a failure of our government, not the market. Your capital lunacy looks stupid as all hades in this debate.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#63
#63
utgibbs said:
Oh, I understand why:

1. The private system has no incentive for efficiency.
2. Health care is not a market (or a systemic market failure if you prefer that lingo).
Click to expand...

Still using buzz words with no substance, eh?

But, before I waste all my time, which definition of efficiency do you prefer to use?

This one? "accomplishment of or ability to accomplish a job [Dx of one form or another] with a minimum expenditure of time [less than 15 minutes in the room with a level 2 code] and effort [throw a pill at it and see what happens]."
 
#65
#65
They're just making one single payer pay for health insurance? First off, dude must be lo-ho-ho-ho-ho-oaded. That's awesome. Those Yanks are really onto something, here.
 
#66
#66
fl0at said:
Still using buzz words with no substance, eh?

But, before I waste all my time, which definition of efficiency do you prefer to use?

This one? "accomplishment of or ability to accomplish a job [Dx of one form or another] with a minimum expenditure of time [less than 15 minutes in the room with a level 2 code] and effort [throw a pill at it and see what happens]."
Click to expand...

If these are buzz words, they're your buzz words, not mine. And it seems a rather ridiculous assertion to make given your jargon filled response above.

I prefer this definition of efficiency:

Better health metrics at lower cost.

Would you care to tackle that one simple, single phrase which blows all of your buzz words (jargon) out the window?
 
Last edited:
#67
#67
rjd970 said:
And what do you think is the reason for that? Serious question.
Click to expand...

A free market is (ostensibly) one in which an informed consumer goes to make informed choices on things she wants. This is when and where the market can work well (although, I would have strong reservations of how well even this functions. The end logic of the capitalist endeavor is to make everybody want to buy cheap tat.)

You might say we go to the market for needs but this is far from correct. Agriculture offers another pertinent example of a systemic market failure, but the analogy even here is far from perfect. After all, anyone can grow their own arugula; no one can perform their own triple bypass.

But even if we employ the right balance of "market forces" and regulation (I'm sure many would say the utilities are in this sort of state, but that is far from correct as well), there would still be no incentive for the private system for prevention which is the goal of a health system. The goal of a health system is to be used as little as necessary (should warm the hearts of the RESPONSIBILITY crowd). This is absolute anathema to the accumulation of capital. Therefore, any action by the private system, must be as costly as absolutely possible.

And this is borne out by all the data from the real world.
 
Last edited:
#68
#68
utgibbs said:
If these are buzz words, they're your buzz words, not mine. And it seems a rather ridiculous assertion to make given your jargon filled response above.

I prefer this definition of efficiency:

Better health metrics at lower cost.

Would you care to tackle that one simple, single phrase which blows all of your buzz words (jargon) out the window?
Click to expand...

Health metrics are a ridiculous standard, because believe it or not, your doctor has about 1% as much influence over that as you do. All the diuretics and ACE inhibitors in the world aren't going to keep an overweight smoker with clogged arteries from dying of heart disease. What's the leading cause of death in this country again?
 
#69
#69
kptvol said:
Health metrics are a ridiculous standard, because believe it or not, your doctor has about 1% as much influence over that as you do. All the diuretics and ACE inhibitors in the world aren't going to keep an overweight smoker with clogged arteries from dying of heart disease. What's the leading cause of death in this country again?
Click to expand...

Yet, smoking is more prevalent in Europe, Cuba, and a host of other NHS systems.... To say nothing of our shameful infant mortality rates.

Systems which have better health metrics at lower cost.

But I've enviscerated this argument before. You have now concretely said (again) in the post above, a health service does not matter.

Let us take you at your word. A health service affects health outcomes by 1%. Then it is imperative to make that system as economical as possible.

I have a lot of Game, Set, and Match moments, but it will be hard to find one more comprehensive than this one.
 
Last edited:
#70
#70
utgibbs said:
A free market is (ostensibly) one in which an informed consumer goes to make informed choices on things she wants. This is when and where the market can work well (although, I would have strong reservations of how well even this functions. The end logic of the capitalist endeavor is to make everybody want to buy cheap tat.)

You might say we go to the market for needs but this is far from correct. Agriculture offers another pertinent example of a systemic market failure, but the analogy even here is far from perfect. After all, anyone can grow their own arugula; no one can perform their own triple bypass.

But even if we employ the right balance of "market forces" and regulation (I'm sure many would say the utilities are in this sort of state, but that is far from correct as well), there would still be no incentive for the private system for prevention which is the goal of a health system. The goal of a health system is to be used as little as necessary (should warm the hearts of the RESPONSIBILITY crowd). This is absolute anathema to the accumulation of capital. Therefore, any action by the private system, must be as costly as absolutely possible.

And this is borne out by all the data from the real world.
Click to expand...

There is a lot of voodoo here. To really see the market work, reduce prices, and create effeciency...all the government involvement needs to be taken out. Claiming the governement can do it through artificial means has proven throughout history to be a losing bet. All your "data" aside.
 
#71
#71
utgibbs said:
A free market is (ostensibly) one in which an informed consumer goes to make informed choices on things she wants. This is when and where the market can work well (although, I would have strong reservations of how well even this functions. The end logic of the capitalist endeavor is to make everybody want to buy cheap tat.)

You might say we go to the market for needs but this is far from correct. Agriculture offers another pertinent example of a systemic market failure, but the analogy even here is far from perfect. After all, anyone can grow their own arugula; no one can perform their own triple bypass.

But even if we employ the right balance of "market forces" and regulation (I'm sure many would say the utilities are in this sort of state, but that is far from correct as well), there would still be no incentive for the private system for prevention which is the goal of a health system. The goal of a health system is to be used as little as necessary (should warm the hearts of the RESPONSIBILITY crowd). This is absolute anathema to the accumulation of capital. Therefore, any action by the private system, must be as costly as absolutely possible.

And this is borne out by all the data from the real world.
Click to expand...


you have absolutely on clue.
 
#72
#72
utgibbs said:
a health service does not matter.
Click to expand...

Not true. A health service won't matter to some people, which is why we can spend a fortune on some people and it will barely affect their health. However, your average joe that's in decent health that happens to get diagnosed with cancer can get a lot of help from a physician. Same for a guy that's in a car accident. In those types of situations, healthcare influence goes up dramatically.

As for the stuff about Europe, their obesity rate is far lower than ours. It's not because their universal healthcare provides them with awesome weight loss medication.
 
#73
#73
I'm not really sure why the infant mortality stuff means much, either. I'm all for reducing the number, but I don't really see any big difference in prenatal care that we could implement over here and cause improvement.
 
#75
#75
kptvol said:
Not true. A health service won't matter to some people, which is why we can spend a fortune on some people and it will barely affect their health. However, your average joe that's in decent health that happens to get diagnosed with cancer can get a lot of help from a physician. Same for a guy that's in a car accident. In those types of situations, healthcare influence goes up dramatically.

As for the stuff about Europe, their obesity rate is far lower than ours. It's not because their universal healthcare provides them with awesome weight loss medication.
Click to expand...

So now, not only do you confirm health care is not a market (the guy in the car accident isn't going to the market as an informed consumer for health care), but you suggest the physical infrastructure of Europe, having been built before the automobile, is part of their dramatic successes in health.

My Game, Set, and Match moments just keep on coming.

It needs not be said you did not address the primary thesis. The NHS systems perform, even by your own standard, at least no worse than our own (just accepting you at your word), and yet they do so at a fraction of the cost. Moreover, they (and especially Cuba) still participate at higher rates in the most health damaging activity known to man (outside of Fukushima)....
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top