Interesting take by a liberal physician who now opposes Fed.gov medical care

So what you're really saying is that we are incapable of learning from other peoples' experiences. Which just makes us stupid.

 

Er, Mexico's health-care system is very similar to ours. It's cheaper because Mexico is a poor country, and everything is cheaper.

Yes. Note that very important caveat: non-primary and elective. And if you don't want to wait, you're free to go to the private doctors.

Isn't a system that prioritizes urgent cases better than a system that prioritizes by ability to pay?

But overall, the United States has similar wait times:
https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/indicator/access-affordability/4578-2/



In the United States, you can generally get in to see a specialist sooner than in public systems, if it's not an emergency. But it's not dramatically sooner, and again, doesn't strike me as a big deal.

Yep. That's kind of what "being part of society" means.

Isn't that enough?

But to be honest, that isn't the only reason. Here are a few more:

1. Not making access to care dependent on the company you happen to work for;
2. Other side of the same coin, making U.S. companies more competitive by removing a giant cost that their overseas competitors don't have;
3. Meaning more money available for things like salary.
4. Ability to hold costs down in the long run.
5. Not having to worry that unexpected medical bills will bankrupt you.
6. Better overall health outcomes.

 

This trope has been exposed as inaccurate countless times, but I'll do so again for your benefit.

You fail to note that this spending is the level of current health expenditure EXPRESSED as a percentage of GDP.

You do understand that the majority of health spending in the U.S. is done with private money? That it is money spent directly by consumers and corporations? That this money goes BACK into the economy, much like when a consumer buys a car?

The money spent by countries with socialized healthcare is money taken OUT of the economy. Just as a country will spend taxpayer money on defense, these countries do the same with their health costs.

This is basic economics that many leftists simply don't understand or choose to ignore so they can be disingenuous.

You also failed to ask how these countries can afford to spend up to 11 percent of their GDP on healthcare.

Here is GDP for military spending from the same site you linked:

United States 3.1%
Britain (UK) 1.8%
Germany 1.2%
France 2.3%
Italy 1.3%
Ireland 0.3%
Poland 2.0%
Norway 1.6%
Sweden 1.0%
Denmark 1.2%
Belgium 0.9%
Netherlands 1.2%

https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/MS.MIL.XPND.GD.ZS?locations=GB-US&most_recent_value_desc=false

Withdrawing the U.S. defense umbrella would force these countries to substantially spend on their own defense, taking funds directly from healthcare. And how much would it cost these countries to ramp up their military to protect themselves after decades under the U.S. defense umbrella?

Trillions and trillions of dollars:

https://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2019/08/its-high-time-germany-fund-and-fix-its-military/159149/

 

Um, you completely do not understand GDP or the effects of government spending.

Because it's irrelevant. They spend LESS of their GDP on health care than we do. If they were spending MORE, you might have a point -- because they are skimping on defense, they have a larger share of GDP to spend on health care.

But that's not what is happening here.

Look, maybe I'm misunderstanding the point you're making. Because what I'm getting from your post is that you're making an argument that fails basic math.

 

Please, read your own link. To the right of the graph is a link to 'details.' There you will see that spending is expressed in GDP. Not the percentage of what the government actually spends, it only uses GDP for comparison purposes. Most healthcare spending in the U.S. is done by the consumer.

Do you know the difference between consumer spending and government spending?:

https://www.bea.gov/resources/learning-center/what-to-know-consumer-spending

Government spending, on the other hand, can only be accomplished by using taxpayer funds, or the amount of money the government takes OUT of the economy.

This is why many economists are opposed to government-provided healthcare; they state it will take trillions of dollars OUT of our consumer-oriented economy.

This is basic economics; not sure how else I can explain this for you.

They spend less government money than what the U.S. does. Why? Because our consumer-obtained healthcare is an important driver of our economy. For some reason leftists are appalled that profits might be obtained by health providers.

And the information I provided about military spending is very relevant; you do realize that for every dollar spent on defense will result in money being taken out of healthcare and other government services for these countries dependent on the U.S. defense umbrella?

 

Okay, here’s the thing: GDP includes government spending. It’s not a separate bucket of money,

So it doesn’t matter that our health care is mostly private, while another country’s is mostly government. It’s all part of GDP, and so it’s comparable: the percentage of GDP you spend on health care covers both private and public spending.

Please tell me you understand that.

 

I know, I mean Blue cross and Aetna and the rest just let the doctors do what ever they want, they are happy to cut customers checks.

I don't get this. The people who write the checks in business or under government contract, you have to do what the check writer wants. I worked in Commision Sales for for 20 years, the buyer called and I jumped and danced to his tune.

 

We HAVE PRIVATE HEALTH INSURANCE care now and THE MOST EXPENSIVE IN THE WORLDD!!!Third leading cause of death in America MEDICAL MISTAKES AND ERRORS!!!!!Our health care sucks.

 

Your a collectivist. I am an individualist.

It is my belief that enabling the individual OVER the collective leads to the best outcomes for everybody. By forcing people, who arent inherently selfish and self centered, to contribute based on the outcome of the collective rather than themselves.

This is the biggest flaw in the liberal agenda. Idealistic principals that ignore the human element.

I disagree that everybody should accept your version of "best" when what you mean is "best for others".

 

*Shrug*. I'm a pragmatist who values individual rights.

I don't see how national health care violates anybody's individual rights. And it just makes sense: same or better outcomes, much lower cost, not tied to employment. It should be a no-brainer.

But no; people think it's just dandy that in the United States, we spend twice as much on health care as anybody else, get mediocre results, and can lose coverage if we lose our job.

 

Define well. Do you consider British ambulance stacking a good policy? How about cutting off dialysis after age 67 as in France.Or on Greece where an elderly woman was slowly strangled by a benign tumor on her neck because the government said she was too old to receive the necessary surgery to remove the Tumor?

 

I define it the only way you can: by overall outcomes compared to cost.
https://www.who.int/healthinfo/paper30.pdf

By that measure, the United States ranks 37th -- behind just about every other developed country.

These are all anecdotes, not data. You can find similar anecdotes from the United States.

For instance, in 2018, the flu overwhelmed hospitals across the country, leading to long wait times and patients being diverted elsewhere.
https://www.statnews.com/2018/01/15/flu-hospital-pandemics/

 

You do realize there is a difference between policy and happenstance right?
You do realize the US is where everyone that has a choice comes if they have cancer?
You do realize that the US with less than 5% of the world population produces 85% of new treatments and medicines?

 

Sure. But ambulance stacking, for instance, was a response to British hospitals being overwhelmed by norovirus. No different than the effect the flu had here.

And you act as if there isn't policy at work in this country. The only difference is it's an insurance company writing the policy, rather than the government. Which is why you get people being denied life-saving treatment because of cost. Or insurers finding ways to cancel a policy when an expensive claim comes in.

Which is relevant how? We still spend twice as much for worse outcomes. Yay.

And by "everyone who has a choice", you mean "everyone who has enough money." Which sounds, to me, like a crappy way to decide who lives and who dies.

I've always found the argument "Americans pay more because we're funding all the research" to be dubious at best. And I also find it weird that the same people who complain about the U.S. footing the bill for the world are just totally fine with this one.

 

NOpe ambulsance stacking happened because government after being informed that a patient dies in the ER without ever seeing a doctor after 4 and 2/3 established a rule where in the ER had to see a patient within 8 hours so patients wait in the ambulance until they are eight hours a way from a doctor. This happen well before the norovirus out break. It is a policy decision in france that those over 67 will not get dialysis. It was a policy decision in Greece that that woman not get the surgery. And of course they don't count any of that as a bad outcome. Here anyone who dies its a bad outcome. we aren't playing on a level playing field.

 

As noted, in the States such decisions get made too -- just by insurers, not the government.

And mortality DOES count as a bad outcome in any study of national health care. Not sure why you think it doesn't.

Regarding your Greek story, you don't think U.S. insurers turn down treatments for cancer patients ALL THE TIME? I could give you dozens of examples.

As far as France deciding no one over 67 can get dialysis -- I can find no reference to this. So a link would be helpful.

 

Indeed it is. The question is whether the article you posted to has any credibility. I thought it was smart to include the part about how the author is a liberal. It makes it oh so much more convincing to see a liberal change their view. Perfect really, perhaps a little too perfect..........as in a fabrication to convince opponents of the lack of efficacy of more nationalized system of healthcare.........like the more successful ones than ours found all around the world.

 

The lady wasn't a cancer patient the tumor was benign.

I'd much rather the insurers make the decision I can get an appeal should they turn me down not from the government.

 

So you'd much rather have these decisions made by a company with a profit motive to deny the care? Weird.

And government-run systems have appeals processes, too. Of course.

 

in free market capitalism the profit motive creates competition for better care and better companies.

 

I understand this, but do you understand the difference between government spending and consumer spending? I provided an excellent link, but I don't think you read it as we're still talking about this.

And this does matter when you gauge the health of an economy when examining a country's GDP. Yes, it's all the same bucket but the government doesn't produce goods or services without removing the cost for such services from the economy.

The GDP is the total of all value added created in an economy. The value added means the value of goods and services that have been produced minus the value of the goods and services needed to produce them.

Private health care, paid for by the consumer, is value added to the GDP. Government spending on healthcare is simply taxpayer money taken out of the economy.

Anyway, my point was most off Europe and other countries that provide free healthcare can only do so because U.S. taxpayers provide their defense umbrella. You haven't refuted this, and I'm curious as to your thoughts.

 

I still don't think you understand GDP if you're still trying to draw some distinction between public and private spending.

A dollar spent by a consumer or business counts as a dollar of GDP.

A dollar in taxes paid by a consumer or business and then spent by the government ALSO counts as a dollar of GDP.

There's no reason to treat those two differently when measuring overall economic activity; it's a dollar spent either way.

Maybe you're trying to make a point about return, as in "a dollar spent by a consumer generates more economic activity than a dollar spent by government." But that's irrelevant to this case. And it wouldn't help your argument anyhow.

No, this is wrong. Both types of spending add to GDP. It's right there in the definition of GDP.
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/g/gdp.asp

GDP includes all private and public consumption, government outlays, investments, additions to private inventories, paid-in construction costs, and the foreign balance of trade.

I did refute it.

Government-run healthcare is cheaper than the alternative. As demonstrated by the fact that every country with government-run health care spends less of its total wealth on health care than we do.

Because it is CHEAPER, it makes no sense to say "they can only afford it because of our defense umbrella." That's like saying "the only reason they can afford to eat gruel and water instead of steak and beer is because of our defense umbrella."

You might have had a case if it were more expensive -- then you could argue that money they otherwise would have spent on defense they instead put toward health care.

But because it's cheaper, that argument fails.

 

So, you're welcome.

If I hadn't posted this article, most leftists would have never seen it as they seldom stray from the echo chamber provided by Democratic Party operatives who pose as journalists for the leftist mainstream media. So you were able to expand your horizons a bit and gain some diversity of thought today.

Sadly, I've found that most liberals/progressives/socialists have such a limited worldview that anything that contradicts the carefully crafted narrative by said 'journalists' will often simply be dismissed as not being credible.

Perhaps you can tell me how you discovered the article isn't credible?

 

Do you see taxation as a reduction of individual liberties?

Because, as you admitted, the national healthcare plan requires that some people work to facilitate resources to others.

Simply by providing a benefit to some people is not validation to take from others in my opinion and its absolutley a reduction of civil liberties if not rights.

I'm all for taxation that benefits everybody... like roads, national defense, our justice system etc. What I am opposed to is taxation as a form of social justice... taking from some for the benefit of others and being told we have an obligation to the collective. That is absolutley a violation of my liberties and right to pursue happiness on my own terms.

Not only do I think your wrong in principal in also think your position is flawed. People are selfish in many cases. Your desire to legislate for the benefit of the collective, using tax dollars, effectively makes workers serfs yoyour agenda, and I think that's wrong and contrary to the very foundations of this country.

Well why stop there? Create a national transportation program and give everybody a car, which will increase productivity and opportunities, provide childcare, utility costs, housing.

If your only datum is "are people better off" while ignoring the consequences, I see you perspectives as very flawed.

Our cost is twice as high because of tort laws first of all, something very closely related to medical care, also, people getting service by visiting the Emergency Department instead if a private physician.

None the less, I dont think a nationalized plan is the best answer. I actually agree with the foundational concept of Obamacare, allowing insurance companies to open risk pools to individuals. What I oppose is forcing people to enroll and affecting those in group plans.

 

If you don’t mind waiting six months for an MRI.

My family doctor retired five years early because of Obamacare. He said it wasn’t worth the hassle.

Government ruins everything it touches.