Question on healthcare

[Tribetime]

Are we currently spending double on healthcare compared to 30 or so countries who more or less provide healthcare for all ?

If we do nothing different should we expect the same results ?

If we add medicare for all who want it to existing costs wont our overall costs go up ?

If we go the way of all other countries why would our costs not compare with theirs?

Why do we say we are going to take away peoples coverage who are happy with it...Are they now going to have superoir coverage which cant be cancelled with prescriptions covered ?

[Hoyt]

1. Personally, I'm not sure enough people trust the government to provide

a better system. I think they are stupid, but that’s another matter.

I’d bet within 5 years of a Public Option — that people can try for themselves — 80% of people would sign up, especially now. In other words, it’s not people making a rational choice by comparing cost and outcomes of our so-called system vs. other countries. People aren’t rational.

With that said, wouldn’t be surprised to see us end up with expanded Medicaid, just like envisioned under original ACA, due to the aftermath of the Coronavirus. Lots of unemployed people — who thought they were safe a month ago — are going to lose their health insurance.

[Sloumeau]

2. Answers:

Are we currently spending double on healthcare compared to 30 or so countries who more or less provide healthcare for all ?

Compared to the countries that offer universal health care, the U.S. is spending more and getting less overall. By Some estimates, the U.S. is spending twice as much as some of the other nations.

If we do nothing different should we expect the same results ?

Yes, that is usually the case when you don't change anything.

If we add medicare for all who want it to existing costs wont our overall costs go up ?

Actually, total spending on healthcare may go down, as an ounce of prevention can be worth a pound of cure. Seeing a doctor right away for a problem may be much cheaper than having surgery later on.

If we go the way of all other countries why would our costs not compare with theirs?

If we had a similar situation with other countries, the costs and benefits would be similar to those other countries.

Why do we say we are going to take away peoples coverage who are happy with it...Are they now going to have superoir coverage which cant be cancelled with prescriptions covered ?

Some people, such as Union Members, got good healthcare packages as part of their collective bargaining agreements. Some of them worry that a universal healthcare package, such as Medicare for All, may not offer them the same benefits as the healthcare package that they currently have. They worry that whatever universal healthcare package that replaces their package, such as Medicare for All will not cover the same things and will end up costing them more because now they will be responsible for anything not covered under Medicare for All.

Note that you seem to be talking about both Medicare for All and Medicare for all who want it. Medicare for All is basically a universal healthcare package that would remove private companies from providing standard healthcare coverage and have the government do that instead. Medicare for all who wants it is basically expanded Obamacare, and would allow private insurance to continue.

[George II]

3. Answers:

No we're not.

Yes, but it's not bad.

Yes.

They will be comparative.

No, and no.

[NCProgressive]

4. Actually, "double what other countries provide" is a fallacy

They compare apples and oranges.

USA has a lot of excess capacity (~30%) which allows for immediate access to a hospital bed, advanced diagnostics and elective surgeries. That capacity adds up the costs.

If everyone is made to wait depending upon their need - say 6 months for a MRI scan if one has back pain which takes back seat to acute trauma, cancer etc., the costs will come down.

Additionally, not all countries provide the same level of care. (As an example) If you scrape your knee, in some countries you get a spirit swab and a bandaid. In the US, you get a lavage, debridement, a tetanus shot, a surgical dressing AND a follow-up visit.

[Tribetime]

5. But if we take the profits

Of the healthcare industry out of the equation wouldn't our costs go down ?

[SCantiGOP]

6. Yes, by about a third

And the reason we are going to run out of hospital beds soon is because we have a private system.
A CEO would be maleficent to build more beds than are typically needed. It would be like a restaurant putting in twice as many table as they need just in case, one day, there is some unusual crowd that could use the extra capacity. For a private profit making enterprise you only want to build what you think will be utilized enough to get the all-important ROI - Return on Investment.
In a government-run system, you would be thinking about and planning for the worst case scenario - like what we are experiencing now.

[NCProgressive]

8. No.

The profits come from economies of scale and efficiencies.

There would be some improvement if the profits are eliminated - some 10% but the main cost is associated with the "on demand" care that Americans get which most other countries don't.

If you need a knee replacement for example, you can get one in a couple of days in the US. In the UK, Canada or Australia, you'd wait for months or longer if your knees aren't all that bad. They will ask you to wait until they become bad enough to use a replacement.

[Tribetime]

10. I just pray

That when we win the house and senate this fall, we can finally get healthcare for all who need it. If you don't have your health you have nothing

[NCProgressive]

11. I completely agree.

[TexasBushwhacker]

7. The thing is, countries with some kind of universal health insurance

also have cost controls on services and drugs. That is the real reason there is so much push back from the big hospital chains and pharmaceutical companies. Big pharma wants to be able to charge $700 for insulin that cost just $100 a few years ago. Hospitals want to be able to keep charging $20 for a Tylenol.

[NCProgressive]

9. Again, apples and oranges

Insulin of today is specifically engineered to be "human" insulin as opposed to pig derived insulin of the past. Humanized insulin costs more because it is more complicated to manufacture.

[SCantiGOP]

12. Human insulin was developed 40 years ago

The cost of insulin has tripled in the last 10 years.
So what are you talking about?
Why a justification of the pharmaceutical companies gouging the American public.