SCOTUS Ruling: a set back for Obama Care

[knapplc]

And the reason that most people liked the existing system was because they were on the good side of it.

Not to mention the fact that they have nothing else to compare it to.

[LukeinNE]

A health care system shouldn't work well for "most people"

 

It should work well for ALL PEOPLE. Obamacare is a step, but it isn't the answer.

 

And the reason that most people liked the existing system was because they were on the good side of it. That doesn't mean that we leave the 20% of people who couldn't get or couldn't afford coverage out to the wolves. But hey, 80% of people liked it!

 

I wasn't mounting a full scale defense of our health care system (though the treatment end is unparalleled, cost and access are issues). I was explaining why many Americans want our health care system to remain the same. As you noted, it works well for the vast majority of them, and again, when something is working well for someone, they don't want it changed.

[knapplc]

 

A health care system shouldn't work well for "most people"

 

It should work well for ALL PEOPLE. Obamacare is a step, but it isn't the answer.

 

And the reason that most people liked the existing system was because they were on the good side of it. That doesn't mean that we leave the 20% of people who couldn't get or couldn't afford coverage out to the wolves. But hey, 80% of people liked it!

 

I wasn't mounting a full scale defense of our health care system (though the treatment end is unparalleled, cost and access are issues). I was explaining why many Americans want our health care system to remain the same. As you noted, it works well for the vast majority of them, and again, when something is working well for someone, they don't want it changed.

 

 

 

What? No. LINK

[Scratchtown]

 

What do you think single-payer would look like in a practical sense?

 

 

Look at essentially any other first-world country that exists in the world today, and there's your answer.

 

The US is completely idiotic when it comes to healthcare, and most of our country seems to either not care or actively wants to keep it that way. Maybe that's because our educational system sucks as well?

 

The education system does suck as well, horribly in fact. I think it is a huge reason why our citizen population is getting dumber on relevant issues each passing year.

 

But,

 

Is it ONLY because the education system is terrible or is it also directly linked to the kind of society we live in that puts emphasis and pressure on wants and desires rather than needs? I bet 70-80% of the college aged kids in this country have no clue about most of the stuff talked about on this P&R forum, (politically).

[darkhorse85]

 

 

What do you think single-payer would look like in a practical sense?

 

 

Look at essentially any other first-world country that exists in the world today, and there's your answer.

 

The US is completely idiotic when it comes to healthcare, and most of our country seems to either not care or actively wants to keep it that way. Maybe that's because our educational system sucks as well?

 

The education system does suck as well, horribly in fact. I think it is a huge reason why our citizen population is getting dumber on relevant issues each passing year.

 

But,

 

Is it ONLY because the education system is terrible or is it also directly linked to the kind of society we live in that puts emphasis and pressure on wants and desires rather than needs? I bet 70-80% of the college aged kids in this country have no clue about most of the stuff talked about on this P&R forum, (politically).

 

 

Fixed.

[Scratchtown]

 

 

 

What do you think single-payer would look like in a practical sense?

 

 

Look at essentially any other first-world country that exists in the world today, and there's your answer.

 

The US is completely idiotic when it comes to healthcare, and most of our country seems to either not care or actively wants to keep it that way. Maybe that's because our educational system sucks as well?

 

The education system does suck as well, horribly in fact. I think it is a huge reason why our citizen population is getting dumber on relevant issues each passing year.

 

But,

 

Is it ONLY because the education system is terrible or is it also directly linked to the kind of society we live in that puts emphasis and pressure on wants and desires rather than needs? I bet 70-80% of the college aged kids in this country have no clue about most of the stuff talked about on this P&R forum, (politically).

 

 

Fixed.

 

 

touche´

[tschu]

 

 

What do you think single-payer would look like in a practical sense?

 

 

Look at essentially any other first-world country that exists in the world today, and there's your answer.

 

The US is completely idiotic when it comes to healthcare, and most of our country seems to either not care or actively wants to keep it that way. Maybe that's because our educational system sucks as well?

 

The education system does suck as well, horribly in fact. I think it is a huge reason why our citizen population is getting dumber on relevant issues each passing year.

 

But,

 

Is it ONLY because the education system is terrible or is it also directly linked to the kind of society we live in that puts emphasis and pressure on wants and desires rather than needs? I bet 70-80% of the college aged kids in this country have no clue about most of the stuff talked about on this P&R forum, (politically).

 

 

I was more talking about how, objectively, we're behind 51 other countries in our quality of math and science education. And this is why we're slipping and will probably continue to slip in the global economy.

 

Politically, we're dumb because people see it as a game or a sport where people choose sides and want to win, rather than a set of issues that need to be resolved. And yes, I'm mainly pointing at the Republican party, but it goes both ways too. The amount of disinformation out there is incredible. It's not a game, and until people wake up and realize this, we're going to get the congressional gridlock just perpetuating itself until one party gets lucky and holds the WH, Senate, and House all at the same time again. Might not be until the Dems likely do it in 2020 or 2022.

 

There's also a ton of overlap between politics, religion, education, etc etc that all explain why we're getting dumber.

[tschu]

I also want to point out how something as simple as the title of this thread is evidence of this sort of thing --- to TGH, this isn't a setback for women, or for people who are trying to get coverage, or for basically anyone who doesn't want their lives controlled by corporations, or any of that. This is a setback for Obamacare and should be celebrated, and is probably a sign that Obamacare will fail and yadayada. It's just not logical thought.

[LukeinNE]

What? No. LINK

 

The Economist doesn't think that study is exactly authoritative.

 

How do you compare something as complex as a national health-care system with its peers?.....The Commonwealth Fund makes quality, access, value for money and equity the leading criteria for judging which countries perform well. Its emphasis on access and per-capita spending mean that America, struggling to extend its insurance coverage, while committing a large amount to overall health-care spending, regularly comes bottom of the Commonwealth Fund table. But that judgment overlooks what American health care delivers well: it scores highly on preventative health measures, patient-centred care and innovation, for instance. It has led the way in reducing avoidable harm to patients, with Seattle’s Virginia Mason hospital delivering “near zero harm”, something many systems, including England’s, are seeking to emulate.

What the NHS is good at is providing cost-efficient care. It spends $3,405 per person per annum, less than half America's outlay of $8,508. Alas, that does not mean the NHS is financially secure: a £2 billion ($3.4 billion) shortfall looms from 2015 and NHS England is struggling to implement £20 billion in savings. And some outcomes for serious conditions do not commend the English model, which does worse on serious cancer treatment than Canada, Australia and Sweden, according to data from the King’s Fund, a health-care think-tank based in London. American women have higher survival rates for breast cancer. Mortality rates following strokes also let down the English system.

....

When it comes to judging the world’s health systems, preferences and values guide conclusions, as well as raw data.

 

 

What I'm trying to emphasize is that the US, provided that you are insured, delivers excellent care, and it's dangerous to say "it all sucks!" (as the organization of the Commonwealth Study tries to do) and throw the baby out with the bath water.

 

Edit - I should also point out that the US health care system has a much more challenging country to treat than any of its competitors. European states lack the permanent racial underclass that America has. Far more Americans die in auto accidents. Obesity in America is much higher. Deaths to violent crime are far higher. These things are all issues we need to work on, but they have nothing at all to do with our health care system.

[Scratchtown]

I am glad the verdict was what it was. I know I am probably in the minority but I really don't think the issue of healthcare was the big picture issue in this case. I look at it as the government gaining more power of control. But, I'm also a "small government" guy.

 

More Power to the States!

[knapplc]

The Economist doesn't debunk that study, and making quality, access, value for money and equity the leading criteria for judging which countries perform well seems like the best way to go about judging whose health care system works best.

 

But even if you choose to ignore that study (which would be foolish),

 

Here's another.

 

Here's another.

 

There are more.

 

Time and time again, these studies find we spend far more on healthcare in America than in comparable nations. Despite that, our life expectancy has decreased since 1970 while our peers' has increased. We lead the world in some categories (such as cancer research/survivability), but that alone doesn't make our healthcare system definitively better than other countries'. You even hinted at cost and access being a problem in our system. It's more than a problem, it's breaking the back of the country.

[Junior]

http://time.com/198/bitter-pill-why-medical-bills-are-killing-us/

http://livingwithmcl.com/BitterPill.pdf

 

Recchi’s bill and six others examined line by line for this article offer a closeup window into

what happens when powerless buyers — whether they are people like Recchi or big healthinsurance

companies — meet sellers in what is the ultimate seller’s market.

The result is a uniquely American gold rush for those who provide everything from wonder

drugs to canes to hightech

implants to CT scans to hospital billcoding

and collection services. In hundreds of small and midsize cities across the

country — from Stamford, Conn., to Marlton, N.J., to Oklahoma City — the American health care market has transformed taxexempt

“nonprofit”

hospitals into the towns’ most profitable businesses and largest employers, often presided over by the regions’ most richly compensated executives.

And in our largest cities, the system offers lavish paychecks even to midlevel hospital managers, like the 14 administrators at New York City’s Memorial

SloanKettering

Cancer Center who are paid over $500,000 a year, including six who make over $1 million.

Taken as a whole, these powerful institutions and the bills they churn out dominate the nation’s economy and put demands on taxpayers to a degree

unequaled anywhere else on earth. In the U.S., people spend almost 20% of the gross domestic product on health care, compared with about half that in

most developed countries. Yet in every measurable way, the results our health care system produces are no better and often worse than the outcomes in

those countries.

[It'sNotAFakeID]

Don't be so convinced that the Hobby Lobby ruling is a win for religious liberty:

 

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2014/06/30/3453902/hobby-lobby-means-for-your-health-care/

 

 

I can't +1 tschu's post about how politics being viewed as a game is extremely detrimental for this country. Not only does it obscure both sides to crucially important information, but it also pits one side against another when that doesn't need to happen at all. It favors advancement for one group at the expense of another. And nobody seems to care.

[LukeinNE]

The Economist doesn't debunk that study, and making quality, access, value for money and equity the leading criteria for judging which countries perform well seems like the best way to go about judging whose health care system works best.

 

But even if you choose to ignore that study (which would be foolish),

 

Here's another.

 

Here's another.

 

There are more.

 

Time and time again, these studies find we spend far more on healthcare in America than in comparable nations. Despite that, our life expectancy has decreased since 1970 while our peers' has increased. We lead the world in some categories (such as cancer research/survivability), but that alone doesn't make our healthcare system definitively better than other countries'. You even hinted at cost and access being a problem in our system. It's more than a problem, it's breaking the back of the country.

 

I didn't "ignore" that study, I said exactly what the Economist said: it was calibrated specifically to make the US look bad and is therefore not authoritative. When the issue specifically is quality, studies that focus on how America spends too much (which we do) or has access problems (which we do) become far less relevant.

 

On actual health care outcomes, what I said before still stands: America has a lot of unique challenges that do not apply to other countries. One of your links above actually implied that America's obesity problem was actually the fault of our health care system, which is of course complete nonsense. What we should be interested in is how various health care approaches would work in America, not Europe. We of course have our own mini-NHS's here in the United States: The VA and the Indian Health Service. How would "VA-care for everyone!" play today? Note: I am not against health care reform (see an above post of mine on that issue), but I don't really care for the viewpoint that "well it works in Europe, so it'll work here," without a critical examination of America's unique problems in this field.

[knapplc]

The Economist didn't say that study was calibrated to make America look bad. It focused on things that real-world people would find important.