The P&R Plague Thread (Covid-19)

[DevoHusker]

1 minute ago, RedDenver said:

That's it? Healthcare is WAY more than just drug prices. And that's even assuming your argument is correct.

I'm not advocating for that, but it's something we could do if someone wants to come up with a plan. The US federal government has flexibility in spending that states do not have, so a federal healthcare system makes more sense economically IMO. Plus it's a hard sell that just across the border someone is getting cheaper healthcare, so it's also politically easier do federally.

 

I can tell that this is an important issue for you based on your responses...and it should be an important issue for everyone. Speaking for myself, I want to see something done for those that have medically inefficient/cost inefficient/no coverage at all. I think we can probably improve on ObamaCare. The Reps have done nothing since it's inception as a counter proposal. I don't think M4All is the ultimate answer. But, as you point out "if" someone can come up with a plan, we should definitely try to do what we can. 

[BigRedBuster]

17 minutes ago, DevoHusker said:

31 individual countries that, again individually, have only to contend with 1/10 to 1/2 of our population, and 50 individual States rights within the framework. 

Someone is going to have to explain to me why this matters.  So, let's say a country has 50,000,000 people.  Those 50,000,000 people are paying for the healthcare of those 50,000,000 people.  We have 350,000,000 people so 350,000,000 people would be paying for 350,000,000 people.  ALSO....those 350,000,000 on average are richer than the 50,000,000 people.

 

What am I missing?

[Archy1221]

1 minute ago, RedDenver said:

That's it? Healthcare is WAY more than just drug prices. And that's even assuming your argument is correct.

I'm not advocating for that, but it's something we could do if someone wants to come up with a plan. The US federal government has flexibility in spending that states do not have, so a federal healthcare system makes more sense economically IMO. Plus it's a hard sell that just across the border someone is getting cheaper healthcare, so it's also politically easier do federally.

Healthcare is way more than just drugs and devices and my argument is correct.  Drugs and Devices are a minority of the costs. 
 

Ad another 20%-30% to the cost structure of those countries Health care costs and let’s see how much more in taxes they need raised to pay for it.  

[BigRedBuster]

2 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

Healthcare is way more than just drugs and devices and my argument is correct.  Drugs and Devices are a minority of the costs. 
 

Ad another 20%-30% to the cost structure of those countries Health care costs and let’s see how much more in taxes they need raised to pay for it.  

Add in how much the private insurance companies are costing all of us...with worse results.

[Archy1221]

2 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

GREAT....let's use some of those riches to fund healthcare.  Now you're onto something.

 

FYI....one main reason why those country's healthcare is cheaper is because they have one entity that negotiates prices.  We don't.  So, a company like Pfizer drops their prices in Norway and makes up for it by raising prices in the US.  They can do that because it's so damn easy to do in the US because the people who actually pay Pfizer don't have a motivation to negotiate.  They just pass it on to us.

 

So....yes....we are subsidizing those other countries.  But...it's because our own system SUCKS.  Thus....getting back to my statement that our healthcare system is NOT the best in the world.  Not even close.

FYI....the results coming OUT of our healthcare system don't even match those other countries.  They are, overall, a healthier population with better results from the system....AND IT'S CHEAPER.

 

FYI....we actually have an entire thread on this subject on here.

If When MFN takes effect, the gravy train for those countries will end. Our prices will go down some and their prices will drastically increase or they will not have access anymore.  
 

Not trying to flippant here, but you don’t seem to understand patient outcome rankings very well.  Diet is the biggest reason our mortality rate is lower (by months in most cases) than other countries.  Diabetes is a huge drain on resources compared to other countries.  
 

Another reason is how each country classifies infant mortality.   Stillborn babies count for us, other countries don’t include a baby until even after the first year in their statistics.  
 

We also spend way more money in the last 18 months of a patient life than other developed nations.  Patients tend to go to hospice care much sooner than in the US where we try to prolong life to the greatest extend possible.  

 

I would suggest staying away from those rankings.  It doesn’t compare what you think it does.  

7 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

Add in how much the private insurance companies are costing all of us...with worse results.

Compare apples to apples on results and not apples to steak dinners. 

[RedDenver]

5 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

Healthcare is way more than just drugs and devices and my argument is correct.  Drugs and Devices are a minority of the costs. 
 

Ad another 20%-30% to the cost structure of those countries Health care costs and let’s see how much more in taxes they need raised to pay for it.  

They pay WAY less than we do. Even if it costs the US 20-30% more than other countries (and there's no reason to think it would), we'd still have a less expensive system than we do now. Same if other countries had to pay 20-30% more - they'd still be paying less than us.

 

In fact, the more geographically dense a population is, the cheaper healthcare costs become because of efficiencies of building fewer hospitals and healthcare facilities per person. Canada should be the country that struggles with costs, but they've figured it out.

[DevoHusker]

7 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

Someone is going to have to explain to me why this matters.  So, let's say a country has 50,000,000 people.  Those 50,000,000 people are paying for the healthcare of those 50,000,000 people.  We have 350,000,000 people so 350,000,000 people would be paying for 350,000,000 people.  ALSO....those 350,000,000 on average are richer than the 50,000,000 people.

 

What am I missing?

 

Simple logistics. You use 50 million. That is roughly France (between 50-60 million). France is roughly the same geographical size as Texas. I am sure that Texas, on it's own, could implement a working system. 

 

France is touted by the WHO (the health organization, not the band) as having the best system in the world. They are a hybrid system. It is not socialized medicine as most picture when they hear that phrase. 

 

France

This is the Country with the best healthcare system in the world according to the WHO. France does have a lesser form of socialized medicine than Canada. In France, most healthcare providers are privately employed just as in the US and Canada. The best healthcare program in the world, the healthcare system of France, is a public-private non-profit partnership. The government regulates and collects the money for the program.

https://medium.com/swlh/a-guide-to-socialized-medicine-in-other-countries-and-a-comparison-to-the-american-healthcare-f9450804c3ed#:~:text=France,in the US and Canada.

France has a non-profit national health insurance system (administered by the Social Security administration) with mandatory coverage for anyone who resides for more than 3 months in the country. Health care insurance is not directly managed by the government but by an autonomous authority made up of representatives of employers, unions and the government. The system is financed mainly by mandatory contributions by employers and employees, or on taxable income for non-salaried persons. Contributions are a percentage of income, not a flat amount. This makes universal coverage feasible because nobody is in a position where they cannot afford health insurance. Currently, employers pay 12.8 % of salary to cover their employees. Employees pay a Social Security tax of 7.5% of salary, but this tax (called CSG) covers not only health care insurance but also includes other benefits like disability insurance. Households earning less than $9,600 per year do not pay any contribution. College students pay a flat amount (about $200 per year.)

[DevoHusker]

10 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

Add in how much the private insurance companies are costing all of us...with worse results.

This is the root of the problem. Insurance and Pharmaceutical companies. 

[RedDenver]

1 minute ago, DevoHusker said:

 

Simple logistics. You use 50 million. That is roughly France (between 50-60 million). France is roughly the same geographical size as Texas. I am sure that Texas, on it's own, could implement a working system. 

 

France is touted by the WHO (the health organization, not the band) as having the best system in the world. They are a hybrid system. It is not socialized medicine as most picture when they hear that phrase. 

 

France

This is the Country with the best healthcare system in the world according to the WHO. France does have a lesser form of socialized medicine than Canada. In France, most healthcare providers are privately employed just as in the US and Canada. The best healthcare program in the world, the healthcare system of France, is a public-private non-profit partnership. The government regulates and collects the money for the program.

https://medium.com/swlh/a-guide-to-socialized-medicine-in-other-countries-and-a-comparison-to-the-american-healthcare-f9450804c3ed#:~:text=France,in the US and Canada.

France has a non-profit national health insurance system (administered by the Social Security administration) with mandatory coverage for anyone who resides for more than 3 months in the country. Health care insurance is not directly managed by the government but by an autonomous authority made up of representatives of employers, unions and the government. The system is financed mainly by mandatory contributions by employers and employees, or on taxable income for non-salaried persons. Contributions are a percentage of income, not a flat amount. This makes universal coverage feasible because nobody is in a position where they cannot afford health insurance. Currently, employers pay 12.8 % of salary to cover their employees. Employees pay a Social Security tax of 7.5% of salary, but this tax (called CSG) covers not only health care insurance but also includes other benefits like disability insurance. Households earning less than $9,600 per year do not pay any contribution. College students pay a flat amount (about $200 per year.)

This seems to show that it would work for the US.

 

I really don't understand your argument here. Somehow multiplying by 7 makes it no longer work?

2 minutes ago, DevoHusker said:

This is the root of the problem. Insurance and Pharmaceutical companies. 

Good news! M4A addresses insurance directly and addresses pharmaceutical indirectly.

[BigRedBuster]

1 minute ago, Archy1221 said:

If When MFN takes effect, the gravy train for those countries will end. Our prices will go down some and their prices will drastically increase or they will not have access anymore.  
 

Not trying to flippant here, but you don’t seem to understand patient outcome rankings very well.  Diet is the biggest reason our mortality rate is lower (by months in most cases) than other countries.  Diabetes is a huge drain on resources compared to other countries.  
 

Another reason is how each country classifies infant mortality.   Stillborn babies count for us, other countries don’t include a baby until even after the first year in their statistics.  
 

We also spend way more money in the last 18 months of a patient life than other developed nations.  Patients tend to go to hospice care much sooner than in the US where we try to prolong life to the greatest extend possible.  

 

I would suggest staying away from those rankings.  It doesn’t compare what you think it does.  

Umm..this is actually a subject I've studied quite a bit.  I fully understand what those rankings mean.  And...our healthcare system still SUCKS.

 

First off, what is MFN?  I google it and it comes up as Most Favored Nation.

 

Much of what you said is true.  Personal choices matter...a lot.  But...many of those personal choices are at least similar to other countries, but, when someone gets diabetes, people in those other counties aren't deciding if they are going to pay rent or buy insulin.

 

OR.....they aren't deciding to not have a surgery because it would bankrupt them.

 

You are totally being flippant in that you assume prices in the US would only go down slightly compared to the increase in other countries.  Can you show me the study on that?

 

The private healthcare insurance industry is ripping us off and allowing the healthcare industry to rip us off even more.

 

 

[Archy1221]

1 minute ago, DevoHusker said:

This is the root of the problem. Insurance and Pharmaceutical companies. 

Pharmaceutical companies are not the Biggest or second biggest or even  third biggest problem for overall cost issues and making healthcare cheaper 

[DevoHusker]

Just now, RedDenver said:

This seems to show that it would work for the US.

 

I really don't understand your argument here. Somehow multiplying by 7 makes it no longer work?

You made the argument yourself...you said a few posts ago that geographic density makes it easier. We are 50 entities separate by a lot of space and distance. 

[RedDenver]

Just now, DevoHusker said:

You made the argument yourself...you said a few posts ago that geographic density makes it easier. We are 50 entities separate by a lot of space and distance. 

We're one country even though we have 50 states (plus some territories and DC). And Canada has far less population density than us and is even our direct neighbor and makes it work. You're arguing that countries with both a higher and lower population density have done it but somehow we can't.

[DevoHusker]

2 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

We're one country even though we have 50 states (plus some territories and DC). And Canada has far less population density than us and is even our direct neighbor and makes it work. You're arguing that countries with both a higher and lower population density have done it but somehow we can't.

I am, and have not, saying we CAN'T make it work. I am, and have, saying we haven't seen a plan that would make it work YET. 

[RedDenver]

Just now, DevoHusker said:

I am, and have not, saying we CAN'T make it work. I am, and have, saying we haven't seen a plan that would make it work YET. 

Ok, I see. I disagree as the M4A bill put out by Bernie Sanders will work IMO. But I'll say that perfection is the enemy of the good, so waiting for the perfect plan isn't a good strategy.