Looks like Obamacare will hit the 7 million mark

Jeffwhosoever said:

Yes

Click to expand...

JoyJuice said:

I am quite sure he had some kind of monthly copay.

Click to expand...

[serious];65312047 said:

Because it is measureably cheaper and provides a comparable or superior result?

Click to expand...

trunks2k said:

I have to admit, I'm really impressed. As of a few weeks ago, I was expecting it to hit a bit over 6 million. But it looks like they did manage to hit their projected 7million and exceed it some. Seems that people really do wait until the last possible second to do stuff.

AP Sources: Health Law Sign-Ups on Track to Hit 7M - ABC News

Click to expand...

AceHero said:

I also expected the 6 million figure to be the new standard, and I was surprised when the results came out—especially since that number doesn't include those still in the process of signing up, those who signed up for the Medicaid expansion, and young adults under the age of 26 who are still on their parents' insurance.

Click to expand...

Boondock_Saint said:

Only 7 million to go and we will have reached all those uninsured.

Click to expand...

Panzerkampfwagen said:

Take a closer look at that graph.

US public spending on healthcare is comparable to that of several other countries.

Apparently, public health care in the United States is so efficient and of such high quality, and so adequate that people tend to spend a lot of their own money on health care.

So, obviously the solution is more public health care.

Click to expand...

EdwinWillers said:

Thank you.

From the Summary of that article:

"Does the United States get corresponding value from the money it spends on health care? The available data do not provide clear answers."

"The OECD data and other research provide some insight into why healthcare spending is higher in the United States than in other countries, although difficult research issues remain."

To partially summarize the Summary:
The available data do not provide clear answers.
The available data provides some insight.
Difficult research issues remain.

In other words, it's as I suspected - it's a graph that shows "something" - but not something that is in any definitive, let alone justification for asserting (not you, but [serious]) "because it is measureably cheaper and provides a comparable or superior result?" The data doesn't demonstrate either. It was used, in effect, to compare apples to oranges on the basis that both are round - and the data says it shouldn't be used that way.

Put differently, would anyone here go to Mexico, or Turkey, or Chile, or Estonia, or Poland... or frankly, to what other country listed on that graph would anyone here go to for their healthcare, for a surgery, for on-going treatment for things like cancer, heart disease, etc. (assuming the trip and trip expenses weren't a factor)?

Click to expand...

[serious];65318171 said:

Oh, I know and agree that it's relevant

We have the highest total spending, the highest private costs, and the 4th highest government spending.

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make here though. If it's "European style universal healthcare will not only save us huge amounts of money, but would also lower our taxes/decrease the debt by saving the government money" we are in complete agreement.

Click to expand...

EdwinWillers said:

7 million? Try 40 million... er, 39.9 million (want to be precise here) obamacare/aca/healthcare reform/government takeover of 1/6th of the economy was sold on the fact that we needed to save the lives of 47 million uninsured, dontcha know.

Click to expand...

EdwinWillers said:

Yeah, only that's not what the report, or it's graph says.

From the Summary of that article:

"Does the United States get corresponding value from the money it spends on health care? The available data do not provide clear answers."

"The OECD data and other research provide some insight into why healthcare spending is higher in the United States than in other countries, although difficult research issues remain."

To partially summarize the Summary:
The available data do not provide clear answers.
The available data provides some insight.
Difficult research issues remain.

Click to expand...

EdwinWillers said:

7 million? Try 40 million... er, 39.9 million (want to be precise here) obamacare/aca/healthcare reform/government takeover of 1/6th of the economy was sold on the fact that we needed to save the lives of 47 million uninsured, dontcha know.

Click to expand...

EdwinWillers said:

Yeah, only that's not what the report, or it's graph says.

From the Summary of that article:

"Does the United States get corresponding value from the money it spends on health care? The available data do not provide clear answers."

"The OECD data and other research provide some insight into why healthcare spending is higher in the United States than in other countries, although difficult research issues remain."

To partially summarize the Summary:
The available data do not provide clear answers.
The available data provides some insight.
Difficult research issues remain.

Click to expand...

Because it is measurably cheaper and provides a comparable or superior result?

Click to expand...

[serious];65322128 said:

2 things:
1. I'm not seeing those quotes in the article. Are you sure you weren't looking at a post in the comment section?
2. They wouldn't be relevant to my point even if they were

They would be relevant if I said that they were cheaper and better than us across all metrics. However, what I said was: "Because it is measurably cheaper and provides a comparable or superior result?"

I believe it was earlier in this thread that I cited infant mortality and life expectancy as common measures of health care quality. Of course there are specific things we are better at, survival following acute MI, 5 year colon and breast cancer survival, etc. However, I'm unaware of any ranking of the system in totality that puts us as the best in the world. I don't think I've seen us in the top ten even.

One of the common cop outs used is, "well, the US is more obese and less healthy!" which is a valid point. It's also one that can be addressed. For example, if you look at state differences, you do see that states that are less obese have cheaper healthcare. However, states that are about as obese as, say, England (I use that country because I checked the data on it recently for use in this comparison in another thread) they still spend more.

Click to expand...

[serious];65322128 said:

FAKE EDIT: I found the article you were pulling from. If you are going to quote a different article than the one I linked, you should probably link the other one.

Click to expand...

EdwinWillers said:

The whole point I was making, which was in fact quite relevant, was that like so many reports and research being done on this and innumerable other issues, all too often the research generates piles of data, much of which is great fodder for places like Internet forums where people think they can use such data to make a point (or disprove a point), when in reality the data is - as was acknowledged in this report - insufficient to either end. In other words, there's all too often too little knowledge to be gained from the research and the piles of data it generates, and even less wisdom.

Data --> Information --> Knowledge --> Wisdom

Most research is successful generating piles of data (its for what the researchers get paid), and that data is compiled by its researchers to provide some information (bonus, if achieved), but rarely does it yield knowledge, and even rarer still, wisdom.

My point was noting that that was how the researchers of that report characterized it - as if to state: "The data in this report is to be used for informational purposes only and shall not be used as justification for some sort of knowledge (it imparts none), or wisdom (it claims none)."

In other words, it's data - nothing more. Use it however one will, but it'll remain merely data. And in most complex systems (like this one), piles of data are tantamount to little more than shredder fodder.

Well I apologize, my quotes were from the actual text of the report (link originally provided by Daisy and my response was originally to her), so I didn't think it necessary to repeat the link inasmuch as I assumed it was implicit. My bad.

Click to expand...