Health Care Thread

Kreugen_sl said:

Mentioning what state you are derping about makes a big difference in whatever you are trying to say.

And medicare is "bad" because it pays doctors less. And clearly they are only in it for the money.

Click to expand...

In my first post, I wrote:
Obamacarehelpsyou if: old, pre-existing condition,live in state with already high health care costs



What is my derp? Did I incorrectly read healthcare.gov, where it said I would have to pay $350 for worse insurance than I paid $150 for previously? Is TJT lying when he mentions his parents see significant savings with ACA, yet the 26 year old parents are paying much more?

And no, medicaid is not 'bad because it pays doctors less'. It is bad because those with medicaid have trouble getting access to services, partly because it pays doctors so little. Note, I mentioned medicaid, not medicare. When people with Medicaid can access services, they are in the same world class hospitals as those with better insurance. It's not the service level, it's the access.

I compared medicaid to socialized medicine in the UK on an access to services basis. Consider the article I linked. The cancer treatment technology has proven itself for a decade, yet the UK only has 2 available, and those in expensive private clinics, whereas I can access this level of care at my local, non-profit hospital with my $150 /mo insurance policy. Hurray socialism!

He has anecdotal evidence and you guys have facts based on studies, clearly he is right and you are wrong. Just like when Florida thought it would save them tons of money to drug test people for food stamps lol.

Trollface_sl said:

all this debate can just end if you have universal health care.

Click to expand...

Yeah, but socialist slave nations bro....

frqkjt_sl said:

In my first post, I wrote:
Obamacarehelpsyou if: old, pre-existing condition,live in state with already high health care costs



What is my derp? Did I incorrectly read healthcare.gov, where it said I would have to pay $350 for worse insurance than I paid $150 for previously? Is TJT lying when he mentions his parents see significant savings with ACA, yet the 26 year old parents are paying much more?

And no, medicaid is not 'bad because it pays doctors less'. It is bad because those with medicaid have trouble getting access to services, partly because it pays doctors so little. Note, I mentioned medicaid, not medicare. When people with Medicaid can access services, they are in the same world class hospitals as those with better insurance. It's not the service level, it's the access.

I compared medicaid to socialized medicine in the UK on an access to services basis. Consider the article I linked. The cancer treatment technology has proven itself for a decade, yet the UK only has 2 available, and those in expensive private clinics, whereas I can access this level of care at my local, non-profit hospital with my $150 /mo insurance policy. Hurray socialism!

Click to expand...

Except you also pay for Medicare and Medicaid, you just don't see that transaction very transparently. But that 150 you pay in most countries is money you just wouldn't have to pay. Also I assume you have employer subsidised insurance so saying it's only 150 is dishonest anyway. It's prolly more like 450.

Anecdotal evidence about one treatment type is BS. Every country has some bureaucratic nonsense that prevents some useful things from being utilised, if I cared to look I could come up with a list a mile long of treatments the FDA has stalled.

wormie_sl said:

But how can we have that when we have dumb fucks claiming that we will become slaves if single payer or universal health care happens?

Click to expand...

And don't forget, because of the wonders of rational economic thinking, moving to a universal health care system will cause the average American to become a fat, lazy fuck since they won't have to pay for their own health care directly anymore.... wait, hang on a second, that doesn't sound right.

Trollface_sl said:

aw shit, i feel like a slave when i have to pay $120 to get my teeth checked up but i gotta anyhow or i am gonna be wizardhawked..

Click to expand...

Not sure I get you, but dentistry is private in Soviet Canuckistan.

I fail at posting. this reply is now below. I accidentally posted before I finished writing

frqkjt_sl said:

Is this a joke? If you're American you will understand this: quality of socialized healthcare in ANY nation is equivalent to Medicaid, which is the lowest level of service. Medicaid is so bad that most doctors will not take patients with this coverage - they actually lose money on office visits.

The result of socializing healthcare is not allowing everyone access to the highest quality services; rather, the result is mandating that nearly everyone only has access to the lowest quality services.

Exhibit A:
Doctors barred from using new cancer treatment equipment | UK news | The Observer

Cyberknife is not new technology - is has been available for quite some time. It is available at my local hospitals; not special cancer treatment centers only for the rich, no, just normal hospitals in my city. If need this treatment, my insurance will pay for it. Unlike in the UK, where you better have $20,000+ to pay private treatment centers; they have only two in the entire country. I bet there's more in my smallish home city than the entire UK.

I bet you would going to use the UK system as an example of how much better socialized healthcare is?

You seem to equate being for-profit with corruption. This is socialist sheep thinking. For-profit is only corruption in a slave society. In free societies, where men exchange goods and services in the market according to their ability, kept orderly with minimal government regulation, the highest quality services will be found at the lowest possible price.

In socialist slave societies, government bureaucrats ration healthcare services to the masses. Their incentive is to reduce costs; quality of service is a secondary concern; there is no financial incentive to provide a high quality service.

Compare the service you receive in any for-profit store/restaurant, or even private hospital, against what you receive in government offices. If you cannot see it, your mind has rotted too far for saving.

Click to expand...

Socialized medicine nations are almost all modeled after MEDICARE not -Caid in fact all -Caid is is private insurance with a payment schedule of 40-80% depending on their rating, period. A GOOD Medicaid doctor can make as much or more as a standard one, if they make sure to keep an A+ rating.

And Medicare is pretty hard to tarnish vs our standard insurances since 3% fewer docs aren't accepting Medicare patients vs normal and satisfaction of clients is higher as well. And before you spit the other myth Medicare is paid for by the client, both in FICA when they worked and the $110/mo or so premium once they're using Medicare.

frqkjt_sl said:

Lithose, let's consider those who are just barely middle class. They can barely afford the cars, the house, and their 1-2 children. Now, you implement ACA and take more money from them, and transfer this to elderly and poor. Will they have another child and thus face the possibility of poverty, or will they stop having children, thus not maintaining replacement rate.

Let's consider the children of middle class baby boomers. They finish college, and the only jobs available pay less than the average college graduate earned in 1995, but they have 2014 prices. To maintain their lifestyle, the move in with parents. Finally at at 30-35, the student loans are paid off, and they can afford a family. Even if they can work their way up to 2014 middle class incomes, how many children will they have starting so late?

In the future, who will pay ACA subsidies? It's not even a question of "is it fair to force the young to pay for the lavish retirement of baby boomers." It's more a question of 'will we be serfs.'

Click to expand...

Average age for planned births has been steadily increasing, last I checked it was already mid 30s - so what you're talking about is the status quo already.

Eomer_sl said:

http://www.who.int/healthinfo/paper30.pdf

Scroll down to page 18. The US ranks 37th, behind a whole shitload of "socialist slave" nations, and in fact a lot of developing countries.

Click to expand...

Eomer, I do have to ask, why so angry?

I did nothing but present my experience with ACA and make some basic deductions. Anyone is welcome to refute me. Yet you call me a racist, take my comments out of context, etc. Your life is short - why spend it here insulting me? If you think I have limited understanding of market theory and government, fine.

I never claimed the UK is a "socialist slave nation." I was replying to Creslin, on the topic of for-profit organizations - he seemed to equate being for-profit with corruption. I disagreed. The citizens of the UK are not slaves, yet they do have less access to high quality healthcare than I do.

What happens if I need an expensive operation or see a specialist in the UK, vs US, vs Canada?

Wait Times For Medical Care: How The US Actually Measures Up - Better Health

Determining which system results in greater healthcare outcomes is very complicated. However you choose to quantify it, the measure you use cannot take into account all factors. I will have to read your document before I can comment further - there is no easier way to mislead than with statistics, especially with something as abstract as 'healthcare outcomes.'

If I need to see a specialist in the US, even for $150/mo insurnace, I could do so, significantly sooner than in the UK on average. Also, it seems like my local hospital would better equipped with the most recent technology, should I need specialized cancer treatment. The US system is not always better - I might have to wait longer to see my primary care physican. These are still statistics, but based on well defined objects of study; 'wait time' is much more concrete than 'healthcare outcomes.'

I did not want to argue the merits of the UK system vs the US system actually. My original point remains unrefuted. I will place it here again for examination;
before ACA the best plan in my state: 0% coinsurance $1500 deductible, comprehensive, $150ish /mo.
post ACA the best plan in my state: 20% coinsurance, $1500 deductible, $350ish

ACA is a wealth transfer from healthy reproductive age middle class to elderly and poor.

Trollface_sl said:

you got me all wrong. I am not defending baby boomers. I am defending my status in the future when I get old and I got no money.

Click to expand...

But you wouldn't have to face this if we corrected the problem now.

Trollface_sl said:

No, it happened 40 years ago. Globalization, women entering the workforce enmass, greater competition, and so on. More supply? better for the government's coffer and corporation.

Click to expand...

No, 40 years ago is when retirement normalization began--the first generation to get more out of SS than they put in happened in 1980, 33 years ago. But the first real retiring generation that wasn't reliant on generational care happened in the 60's (Which is when the first real post depression pensions and SS began to meet up)--50ish years ago. So the last real generationthat saw the things you're talking about? Was about 80 years ago.

People weren't running to become nuns when they were poor in the 70's, Troll. I'm not sure what you're smoking. But the last time those things happened in en masse with pre-depression.

Trollface_sl said:

Correlation can mean a lot of things.....one of them isn't necessarily the cause....massive wealth accumulation existed well before twentieth centuries....so yeah....what the fuck are you talking about?

Click to expand...

It's a hugely complex set of causes--there is literally a whole study of economics based on JUST generational finance. The modern world is different because, in general, after the break up of aristocratic accumulations--money ended up accumulating downward from a generational stand point. Family businesses moved from old to young; and innovation/government leeching was pretty much a young mans game. Essentially the total pie grew bigger, and young people snatched up the newer portions. (The big thing here is how fast the pie was growing.)

Now growth is much slower; so that flow of generational wealth has slowed down. But also, the flow of family assets has slowed down; partially due to being replaced by larger publicly held entities (Wal Mart replacing mom/pop) and partially because wealth funds controlled by the elderly are cycled into fund pools which are more heavily diverted into markets which don't produce actual growth (Synthetic markets, which make up a huge majority of our economy). This means their money is making money without any of the bleed off that typically happens during tangible investment (In which the younger generation suck up said bleed off). A quick example is that before, for grandmom to make money; she put money into a company which built a new factory, sold more stuff and gave her either a direct return (Dividend) or an appreciation (Through stocks/bonds)--now a lot of money is cycled into betting whether United Airlines will go under because oil went up .05$ (This is sunday morning cartoon version of things, the accounts are diversified so grandmom/pop still have the typical treasuries too--but their "risky" investment doesn't create jobs, that's the point.)

Now the banks make the lion share of this; but the elderly are still benefiting a great deal..and this benefit, while only somewhat bad on it's own, is exasperated because the elderly themselves have a much lower cost to live thanks to generous government programs. So for these reasons, and MANY others, money is being trapped in the upper generational bracket--this means that at the CRITICAL moment; less assets are being devoted to the younger generation. (Because the typical increase in costs, thanks to needing care, bigger medical bills--ect..is being subsidized by the young, which is fucking ABSURD given the young have less of the money.)

As a young person, just starting out...you are only around 30-40% as wealthy, on average, than someone who was starting out just 20 years ago. Yet the older generation is almost twice as well off.



There is a reason why every commercial you see about retirement investments has a couple of old people in it, troll. Because they are the ones with all the money. That's what the fuck I'm talking about; this generation is fundamentally different because the typical generational transfers have slowed WAY down; and yet, despite that, we are still supplementing the cost of growing old with the labor of the young--it makes NO sense from a financial stand point.

Old people are the LAST people that need breaks; and yet everyone is scared as fuck about lowering Grandma's social security; but yet they will clamor in and tell Johnny minimum wage he needs a third job if he wants to eat a solid three meals a day, and he shouldn't beg the government like a pathetic moocher he is! Rar rar something about in my day boostraps were even tighter...

You still didn't answer if you're quoting your insurance as an employee policy, because if it is (it is with those numbers), your actual rate is much higher some employers pay up to 90% of employees insurance costs, and 60% tends to be the low-end since that maximizes the tax credit for providing insurance. So you're probably comparing $350 to $450-1000 wonder which should be worse...

Also any subsidy you'd qualify for on the ACA shows up after completing enough that you have you SSN and such submitted that you likely didn't go beyond as a "browser". So there might be a reduction you've missed on top of it.

Creslin_sl said:

But that 150 you pay in most countries is money you just wouldn't have to pay. Also I assume you have employer subsidised insurance so saying it's only 150 is dishonest anyway. It's prolly more like 450.

Click to expand...

I went to ehealthinsurance.com, compared plans and prices, and bought a plan with no outside assistance. 0% coinsurance, $1500 deductible, comprehensive. The initial cost of the plan was less than $150. My employer offered no assistance with health insurance whatsoever. I know it may seem unbelievable, considering the average cost of a post ACA plan - but yes, if you were healthy, health insurance was very affordable pre-ACA.

Nothing is free. If the US had universal coverage, rather than paying my insurance co $150/mo, I would pay the government much more in taxes.

Vaclav_sl said:

You still didn't answer if you're quoting your insurance as an employee policy, ...

Also any subsidy you'd qualify for on the ACA shows up after completing enough that you have you SSN and such submitted that you likely didn't go beyond as a "browser". So there might be a reduction you've missed on top of it.

Click to expand...

I am not eligible for a subsidy; I have verified this by speaking on the phone to healthcare.gov representatives.

Even so, someone must pay these subsidies. Not the poor - they are the ones collecting. Large corporations - no again, they don't pay taxes. Middle class and moderately wealthy business owners will pay, and these groups are already under strain. Thus, my main point, ACA is wealth redistribution from middle class to poor and elderly.

Even if I personally could receive a subsidy, this has nothing to do with the damage ACA will cause to the middle class.

edit**

Lithose_sl said:

As a young person, just starting out...you are only around 30-40% as wealthy, on average, than someone who was starting out just 20 years ago. Yet the older generation is almost twice as well off.

Click to expand...

Exactly - and these are the people we are taking from in order to subsidize poor and elderly.

frqkjt, were you getting insurance through your employer? What state are you in? $150 for that coverage doesn't add up at all.

It's probably a catastrophic plan with a $5k lifetime max or some shit like that AZ and a few others allowed and aren't banned yet.

The kind he'd be complaining about the minute it really was needed. "Got cancer? Whoops over your limit, cancelled!"