- cross-posted to:
- nyt_gift_articles@sopuli.xyz
- cross-posted to:
- nyt_gift_articles@sopuli.xyz
In 2017, Donald Trump and Republicans in Congress tried to eviscerate the A.C.A. and almost succeeded in passing a bill that the Congressional Budget Office estimated would have left 22 million more Americans uninsured by 2026. There’s every reason to believe that if the G.O.P. wins control of Congress and the White House in November, it will once again try to bring back the bad old days of health coverage. And it will probably succeed, since it failed in 2017 only thanks to a principled stand by John McCain — something unlikely to happen in today’s Republican Party, where slavish obedience to Trump has become almost universal.
If you want to preserve that access to health insurance, it’s worth checking your voter registration, getting involved as a volunteer for the Democrats and doing what you can afford to provide financial support
You must log in or register to comment.
Why do American leaders hate the health of their citizens so much? Seriously, the multi-generation political opposition to universal health care (or even anything getting close) is obscene. The US spends 2x as much on healthcare as peer nations (about 40% of that excess on admin and pharma) in order to have 220 billion in citizen medical debt. I’m assuming that’s with Obamacare btw, much less without guaranteed insurance for high-risk patients.
The suffering and the debt is the point. It makes people compliant workers, and there is massive profit being made off of human suffering. The United States is fundamentally an immoral nation being propped up by the stupidity of the white evangelical working class.
You’d be astonished how much of a money printer companies like Pfizer, UHC, Cigna and Aetna are… and they have enough money that they can buy an awful lot of politicians. Obama care itself is fucking awful - it’s way better than what we had before - but it enshrined the ridiculous grift based economy we use for health services.
These companies should not exist.
and they have enough money that they can buy an awful lot of politicians.
Thing is, they don’t need to buy an awful lot of politicians. Republicans are already on their side because Republicans are assholes. They only need to buy just enough Democrats.
Facts don’t matter, money and cost savings and health don’t matter. Only the maintenance of social, economic, racial, religious and gender hierarchies matter.
People are definitely going to cover the political, corrupt reasons but one historic reason is that we didn’t have the destruction of WWII in the U.S. Britain’s National Health Service was created in 1946. Germany’s was created during the war in 1941. In many ways, WWII is what created the conditions for universal healthcare in Europe.
In the U.S., we never had an equivalent crisis and so we basically have a non-system made out of kludges and duct tape. There’s no one government program but instead, several programs that were meant to be reforms but just added to the mess. To quote the Census:
Of the subtypes of health insurance coverage, employment-based insurance was the most common, covering 54.5 percent of the population for some or all of the calendar year, followed by Medicaid (18.8 percent), Medicare (18.7 percent), direct-purchase coverage (9.9 percent), TRICARE (2.4 percent), and VA and CHAMPVA coverage (1.0 percent).
And in the end, 92% of people end up covered. It might be shitty coverage and no one likes the mess of programs but sometimes, it takes a true crisis like WWII to make radical reforms.
Germany has had universal health care since 1883. The model they used is still called the Bismark model and is still used in some places today, even tho Germany moved away from that model.
Universal health care has existed in the western world since before Washington (my state) was admitted to the union.
Insurance is the only industry that becomes more efficient when scaled larger (larger pool, less risk). Every argument against M4A is flat out lying done by profiteers - as evil an opinion as any other to ever exist and I’ll die on that hill…prematurely since I don’t have adequate health insurance.
One word: Abortion.
Evangelicals control the Republican Party, and there’s never enough votes for real reform without the Republican Party.
Bear in mind that guaranteed insurance isn’t the balm you may think it is. Insurance companies make substantial profit off of denying claims. The USA will continue to have worst-in-show health care until/unless we get rid of private health insurance entirely.
I totally agree. In another portion of this thread I talk about how unethical it is that healthcare professionals have to argue/plead with profit-motivated insurance companies to be allowed to properly care for their patients. For what it’s worth, it may be that hybrid systems (public and private with universal guaranteed coverage) work best - e.g. Germany and Singapore. The very simplistic TL:DR is that private is allowed to exist as additions to universal public, but is regulated by the government and must make profit within the bounds of those regulations (as opposed to free market maximized profit). Everyone is guaranteed excellent care via very careful government intervention/standards. It’s hard to get right, but can result in private efficiency at public prices.
Because it is called Obamacare. If you ask if they approve of the Affordable Care Act, support is much higher.
It is the same thing people. Stop calling it Obamacare and start using ACA or Affordable Care Act. Obamacare is not is name.
They’re too busy funding other country’s wars.
The US spends more on healthcare because it spends more on everything. I don’t think people have a good sense of how much Americans consume even compared to their peers in other rich countries.
If you plot healthcare consumption per capita versus individual consumption per capita, you can see that the US is on the trend line. Americans are not spending inherently differently from Europeans, despite the differences in healthcare systems. They just have more of everything, including healthcare.
The only source I found for the graph you linked is some guy’s anonymous blog post. I only skimmed the article because I’m not reading the MANY pages’ worth of text from an unreviewed, unpublished source. I’m open to new ideas, but I want better sources. Harvard’s School of Public Health tells me that US healthcare is the most expensive in the world and that’s a problem. For a primary source, here’s a study published in JAMA that concludes, “The United States spent approximately twice as much as other high-income countries on medical care, yet utilization rates in the United States were largely similar to those in other nations. Prices of labor and goods, including pharmaceuticals, and administrative costs appeared to be the major drivers of the difference in overall cost between the United States and other high-income countries.” Similar utilization rates = people are not getting significantly “more” healthcare for their significantly more money.
I read some of that blog but gave up after a few minutes because I hate the premise - just because the US is rich does not make it ok that US healthcare is more expensive per capita and as a % of GDP. Given how critical healthcare is to quality/length of life, I believe it can only ethically be a guaranteed safety net - not an industry that excludes. It’s not ok to charge people higher prices for a life-defining procedure that would be cheaper elsewhere for profit’s sake and justify it by saying there are enough wealthy people to keep the system going.
Inserting for-profit insurance means companies charge what they can to be maximally profitable, which prices out the poor and leads to the problem we see where healthcare is almost a luxury. The free market means not everyone can afford luxury cars and that’s ok, but it has no place in determining whether everyone can access to “luxury” healthcare. It also complicates health care at a detriment to patient wellbeing - a great example is doctors having to get approval for life-saving/improving procedures from a corporation motivated by wealth. I try not to be close-minded, but it’s going to take far more for me to ignore criticisms from credible sources and the realities of medical bankruptcy or people scared to get an ambulance ride because of personal cost.
Just look at the Wikipedia page on List of countries by household final consumption expenditure per capita. Americans consume much more than anyone else on the world, and it’s not even close. Americans even consume at a higher level than the “ultra-rich” countries that exceed it in GDP per capita, e.g. 30 percent more than Luxembourg (which is number 2 on the list)!
This covers all forms of consumption, in which healthcare is only a fraction. The discrepancy is so great that it can’t be explained by US healthcare being expensive. It’s the other way round, it’s healthcare consumption that is being pulled along by the rest of the consumption.
That is just restating the argument. There’s nothing new in that response and I addressed the flaws of the idea that a richer country should = more expensive health care. It’s not as if healthcare costs have some inherent reason to increase along with wealth. As an analogy, paying 50 dollars for electricity while earning 1k/month doesn’t justify paying 5,000 for the same electricity usage while making 100k/month - it’s 50 dollars’ worth of electricity either way. Most glaringly, if healthcare is priced based on what the market will bear it excludes/punishes many folks by making care more expensive (as a %) the further down the ladder you are. It’s the market model you’d expect for an optional product, not a life-defining essential.
US citizens aren’t even getting “more” for the extra cost. The JAMA article I posted states that a) Americans utilize healthcare at largely the same rate as cheaper countries and b) the extra cost is primarily due to increased pricing of labor/goods and administrative expense. Expensive privatized healthcare resulting in huge amounts of medical debt is a solvable industry-created problem that the USA’s peer countries have reduced or avoided entirely. If a Canadian and American live near the border, on average the Canadian pays half as much per year (link here again for convenience), is guaranteed coverage, and lives 3 years longer than the American a few kilometers away. While life expectancy is undeniably decided by multiple factors (certainly more than just healthcare quality), we can say for sure that Americans are not getting appreciably more frequent health care nor are they living longer than their neighbors for all that they pay double.
It’s not as if healthcare costs have some inherent reason to increase along with wealth.
Well, there are several big reasons. For example, doctors and nurses in the USA have much higher pay than those in Europe. Part of this is because of policy differences (e.g., the supply of US doctors is artificially restricted by the AMA). But part of it is simply that educated professionals are paid much more in the USA than in Europe, and it’s nothing specific to healthcare.
The point is that when making comparisons between US and other rich countries, the first thing you have to do is to account for the fact that Americans (i) have higher GDP per capita, and (ii) have higher levels of consumption even after compensating for GDP per capita. That should be the first-order effect, with stuff like the public-versus-private issue as second-order effects.
I do agree with the benefits to the US not being proportional to the cost, to a point. Lots of healthcare spending goes into things that don’t really benefit aggregate outcomes, like heroic interventions that end up extending end-of-life by a few months, or treatments that only benefit one-in-a-million conditions. But this is not just an issue for the US; for example, the UK spends 18x on healthcare per capita compared to Thailand, for 2 extra years of life expectancy. And those individuals who get their lives extended by a small amount, or get their rare condition treated, may have different views on the matter.
Doctors are paid more, but still a small slice of healthcare costs. Doctors in the US working entirely for free would barely make a dent. All administrative costs, including doctors and nurses salaries, but also our bloated health care administration, add up to 8%. A lot of the extra administration costs are also things like all the staff needed just to interface with the giant mess of different payers including multiple private and government programs, all with different documentation and billing requirements.
The insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies, medical device and equipment companies, and private equity owners of hospitals and practices who are all reaping windfall profits at the expense of patients love to direct the blame to doctors though.
-
Doctor salaries do not account for the 550 billion dollar pharma industry or the 1.7 trillion dollar health insurance industry. As a comparison, Canada’s health industry is 112 billion USD. The USA’s population is 8.4x greater, 8.4x112 billion = 940 billion instead of 1,700 billion (1.7 trillion).
-
Canadian doctors earn 3rd most in the world, around 200k/year. US doctors earn about 117k more a year. There are just over a million doctors in the USA = about 117 billion dollars which brings the cost from 940 billion to 1.057 trillion instead of 1.7 trillion.
-
I don’t give a damn about GDP/consumption and have explained why in detail. You keep on saying the same thing, but you’re not going to convince me that US healthcare should be more expensive to the tune of 700 billion/year because Americans buy more electronics, vehicles, etc. Especially given that wealth inequality means there’s a huge variance in what people can afford.
-
With regards to pharma, other developed nations pay less than 1/3rd for the same medicine, which nullifies any inherent cost argument. Americans pay much more for medicine just because of allowed corporate greed.
-
I acknowledged that there’s more to life expectancy than cost of healthcare, but we don’t need to compare the UK to Thailand. We can compare the US to Canada, New Zealand, Germany, Japan, Korea, etc to see that it’s more expensive and yet does not extend American life expectancy past that of cheaper countries. If you read my links, you’ll see that the US has low doctors per capita, and high avoidable deaths per 100k when compared to peer nations - proof that Americans are not getting more for their money.
-
In order for your point about heroic interventions etc. to be valid in a US vs. other developed nations argument, you’d have to prove that the other countries are not saving their citizens (otherwise it’s a wash, with both groups saving seriously ill patients). Not only would the US have to be saving their citizens where others don’t, but they’d have to be doing so in large enough quantities to skew national statistics.
-
Even if experts agreed that the US system was great, I’d disagree because I can see the real-world end results. It’s not ethical that doctors have to argue/plead with profit-motivated insurance accountants to properly treat their patient. It’s not ethical when a seriously ill/wounded patient in a hospital is trying to figure out how they are going to deal with medical debt/bankruptcy that’s going to leave them impoverished.
-
However, I don’t need to worry about that dilemma because experts are not fans of the US for-profit system. As I’ve provided several links to prove, both economists and medical professionals regularly publish criticisms of the USA’s expensive, under-performing healthcare.
-
I know they pounded the drum of “repeal and replace” the ACA forever, but in all of these years they have no ONCE posted a draft of any legislation that would even come close to replacing the ACA.
How do Republicans even still say they have a better idea after all these years with nothing to show for it? I’m not even talking about legislation that passed, just a draft of what they’re proposing. What has stopped them from opening up Microsoft Word and just writing their “better” replacement? Could it be there IS no better replacement they are interested in passing?
There are better replacements, but they tend to look like a fully government-run system, ending the profits of private insurers and major hospital operators. Those are ideologically unacceptable to the Republicans.
I agree. I can afford even today’s ludicrous health care costs, but I know I’m an exception. So many of us can’t. For that reason I’m a proponent of “single payer” universal healthcare that all of use can afford which is indeed better than today’s ACA. However, I am well aware that is even farther away from what Republicans would want. Hence my statement that Republicans can’t even produce a draft of what they deem to be better, not that I’d agree with their definition of better.
Republicans don’t have another alternative because the ACA was THEIR alternative.
Democrats do a better job of passing Republican legislation, without Republican support, then passing anything close to progressive positions.
Here’s the friendly reminder that SOCIAL DEMOCRACY is the great compromise between capitalists and eradicate-the-capitalist-genetics-from-the-gene-pool communists. It is the center - not Neoliberalism. NL is fully right wing politics.
The Medicaid expansion alone has saved so many lives, not to mention the pre-existing condition stuff. Even the holdouts are slowly taking the Medicaid expansion (which the federal govt pretty much pays the entirety of)
This is the best summary I could come up with:
And President Biden strengthened the program, notably by extending provisions eliminating the “cliff” that cut off subsides for many middle-class Americans.
And it will probably succeed, since it failed in 2017 only thanks to a principled stand by John McCain — something unlikely to happen in today’s Republican Party, where slavish obedience to Trump has become almost universal.
Last week, he posted a screed about how an “INVASION” of migrants is “KILLING SOCIAL SECURITY AND MEDICARE,” which is both the opposite of the truth and a demonstration that he has little idea how even the biggest, most important government programs work.
When he was in office, Trump was putty in the hands of right-wing economic ideologues, who actually know how to write legislation that serves their objectives; practically his only major budgetary initiatives were a tax cut for the wealthy and corporations, which passed, and the attempted gutting of Obamacare, which fell just short.
And what we know is that even though Trump likes to portray himself as a populist, right-wing economic ideology still rules among congressional Republicans, who are as eager as ever to effectively destroy Obamacare.
members of the House of Representatives, released a budget proposal that teed up many of the 2017 “reforms” that would have caused millions of Americans to lose health coverage.
The original article contains 901 words, the summary contains 217 words. Saved 76%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
Of course it is.
