WAPO: Single-payer Would Have Astonishingly High Price Tag

[Veritas]

We need that money to keep bombing people in other countries! How dare you think about taking money away from our ability to kill more people?!

You must be talking about Obama's drone war that killed more than Bush.

 

[Veritas]

It also means everyone receives health care, businesses won't have to provide health insurance, there will be no deductibles to pay.

Utopia at last!

 

[Veritas]

Judging from the Canadian experience with a single payer universal system, our overall health spending is considerably lower without loss of either quality or quantity.

Comparative outcomes -------- Canada / US :
per capita medical spending --- $4500 / $8500
percent of GDP ---------------------11.2 / 17.7
public share –---------------------- 70% / 48%,
doctors per 1000 -------------------- 2.4 / 2.5
nurses per 1000 ----------------------9.3 / 11.1
life expectancy ----------------------- 81 / 79
smoking rate --------------------- 15.7% / 14.8%
obesity rate -----------------------25.4% / 36.5%.

As you can readily see, Canada achieves comparable or superior outcomes at close to half the expense and every citizen regardless of status or income has equal access.

Probably because US citizens pay for nearly all R&D that other countries enjoy without the additional cost. Lucky you!

 

[PeachyKeane]

Utopia at last!

Better or worse than now?

 

[PeachyKeane]

Probably because US citizens pay for nearly all R&D that other countries enjoy without the additional cost. Lucky you!

That's a bit confusing. We spend more on health research because we are the wealthiest nation. As a percentage of our GDP we are outspent by France, The Netherlands, Japan, South Korea, Austria, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Switzerland and Israel. As they have all been spending more on health over time, we have been spending less. In fact, we will be outspent entirely by China within a decade.

My point? Our health research spending is not likely the result of our health system. Most of the countries who outspend us above use a single-payer system. We are not particularly likely to spend a whole lot less if we change to single-payer.

 

[JackRT]

What's the population of the UK? What about Canada?

Google is your friend.

 

[jgarden]

The US is not Canada nor UK or any other socialist country.

Virtually every other modern democracy in the world and virtually all of our military allies would be considered "socialist" by American standards!

As the comparison shows, America is already spending more on healthcare than countries like Canada - which have adopted universal systems.

Unlike America, however, the legislatures and political leadership of these countries are not committed to abandoning the healthcare needs of 99% of their citizens - so the top 1% can get their tax cut!

 

[LoAmmi]

You must be talking about Obama's drone war that killed more than Bush.

And Trump's continuing that practice! So, AMERICA!!!!

 

[PeachyKeane]

What's the population of the UK? What about Canada?

Canada is roughly 35 million people. The UK is roughly 65 million people.

 

[Veritas]

That's a bit confusing. We spend more on health research because we are the wealthiest nation. As a percentage of our GDP we are outspent by France, The Netherlands, Japan, South Korea, Austria, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Switzerland and Israel. As they have all been spending more on health over time, we have been spending less. In fact, we will be outspent entirely by China within a decade.

My point? Our health research spending is not likely the result of our health system. Most of the countries who outspend us above use a single-payer system. We are not particularly likely to spend a whole lot less if we change to single-payer.

Completely false. Even foreign companies run their R&D through the US because it's so profitable. US citizens/taxpayers subsidize most R&D for Big Pharma and medical device makers. Try doing some research before making statements.

How The US Subsidizes Cheap Drugs For Europe

https://www.forbes.com/sites/peterubel/2014/04/18/the-real-health-care-subsidy-problem/#1dec04352881

U.S. Consumers Foot the Bill for Cheap Drugs in Europe and Canada

 

[Veritas]

Google is your friend.

I don't ask questions I don't know the answer to. Do you get the point?

 

[Allandavid]

I don't ask questions I don't know the answer to. Do you get the point?

Really...??

How do you learn anything new...?

 

[RDKirk]

This averages out to $830/mo for every person in the country. If we're not paying insurance premiums, then it would mostly wash out.

With Medicare for all, your employer is also not paying anything (and health care is a serious problem for American companies that foreign companies don't have to deal with). And it's both insurance premiums and co-pays and deductables. So, yes, it will wash out.

 

[RDKirk]

Yup and healthcare is a blend of mostly public with aspects of private.

But yeah, socialised healthcare gives people the eeby jeebies for some reason.

Heavens forbid your taxes go to help wider society!

"Single payer" is not socialist.

The VA and military healthcare systems are socialist. Medicare/Medicaid are not socialist, and would not be even if they were extended to everyone.

 

[PeachyKeane]

Completely false. Even foreign companies run their R&D through the US because it's so profitable. US citizens/taxpayers subsidize most R&D for Big Pharma and medical device makers. Try doing some research before making statements.

How The US Subsidizes Cheap Drugs For Europe

https://www.forbes.com/sites/peterubel/2014/04/18/the-real-health-care-subsidy-problem/#1dec04352881

U.S. Consumers Foot the Bill for Cheap Drugs in Europe and Canada

You missed my point. The United States is unlikely to spend less on health research even if it's a single-payer system. It isn't a matter of system, it's not a matter of subsidies, it's a matter of wealth.

 

[PeachyKeane]

I don't ask questions I don't know the answer to. Do you get the point?

My mistake for answering you I suppose. So, what was the point? Does the difference in population matter?

 

[PeachyKeane]

Really...??

How do you learn anything new...?

Maybe that's the point.

 

[PeachyKeane]

With Medicare for all, your employer is also not paying anything (and health care is a serious problem for American companies that foreign companies don't have to deal with). And it's both insurance premiums and co-pays and deductables. So, yes, it will wash out.

I pointed that out. The response was a (sarcastic?) "Utopia at last!"

 

[Belk]

Completely false. Even foreign companies run their R&D through the US because it's so profitable. US citizens/taxpayers subsidize most R&D for Big Pharma and medical device makers. Try doing some research before making statements.

How The US Subsidizes Cheap Drugs For Europe

https://www.forbes.com/sites/peterubel/2014/04/18/the-real-health-care-subsidy-problem/#1dec04352881

U.S. Consumers Foot the Bill for Cheap Drugs in Europe and Canada

So your idea is that we should continue to pay more for our healthcare so that pharmaceutical companies can make a profit off of us?

 

[Fantine]

Don't you think if we took all the premiums, copays, medical costs, etc. we pay as a nation right now it would cost exactly the same--or probably more? It's like shopping at Best Buy instead of Target for a television set? Who cares as long as the service is provided and affordable?

Just maybe the government can do it better....

How much do most of us want the certainty of government healthcare? In Oklahoma (one of the meanest, if not THE meanest, states in the country) people are researching their genealogies trying to get affiliated with a tribe...you only need to be 1/64 to get Cherokee benefits, I've heard, much easier than the Choctaws. But if one person in the family does the work and gets certified, the others only have to prove their relationship to that person.

Yeah, maybe Indian Health Service isn't the top of the line care (even though one doctor I know changed over to get better work/life balance) but it sure beats nothing. It sure beats bankruptcy. It sure beats the problems so many of you will have if Republicans get their way.