Could the United States afoord to NOT have medicare/medicaid?

[Dinner]

The obvious solution is to reduce even further the out-of-pocket expenses borne by health care consumers in the US.

To a limited extent, yes. Or rather the obvious solution is to eliminate the parasitic good for nothing middle men who eat up virtually all of the price difference but who do not provide one bit of additional care. Kill the **** bag middle men who take a huge cut but who don't do a damn thing for the patients, or the doctors, or for anyone else other then the money men. Get rid of them and watch the price of health care in the US drop down to the OECD average. Amazing isn't it? Eliminate parasites who suck up money but don't do anything for the actual customers and watch efficiency soar. It's good for Walmart and it's good for end consumers in every industry. Yet we pretend surprise to find what we know is good every where else.

Getting rid of the parasites means costs can go down but out of pocket expenses could also go down. Efficiency gains are good for everyone (other then the worthless good for nothing parasites who should all be shot).

[MikeH]

There are any number of statistics demonstrating better outcomes after onset of disease in the us, btw. Those aren't particularly good metrics of the effectiveness of the us health system either...

No, because they don't document prevention, which is typically cheaper and has better outcomes for the patient than treatment.

But the cancer survival metrics are good for the US.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7510121.stm

Just worth noting it only documents diagnosed cases receiving treatment.

[Lorizael]

Without removing the effects of age and socioeconomic status of mother? Not particularly.

This tidbit only demonstrates that America's problems run far deeper than its healthcare system.

[Hauldren Collider]

Infant mortality is not a good metric of a nation's health system?

Nope, and neither is life expectancy.

[Imran Siddiqui]

BTW Imran, there is an apropos saying for the chart you posted (and the associated wailing and gnashing of teeth): If something cannot go on forever, it will stop.

The question is how and which way do we wanted it to stop.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Well, I figure that based on current trends (from wikipedia):



if that continues, we (as in the US) is ****ed.

Whats interesting about that graph is that the large accelerations in health care costs as a percentage of gdp seem to occur or be failrly coniciidental with economic recoveries. The arguement that the US health care costs are attributable to large disposable income availability make sense in this regard.

[Kuciwalker]

Two giants in the room I forgot...

"there is a lot of ruin in a nation"

[Felch]

An idea formed in my head around the third bong hit after reading this thread. Why not just figure out a good average amount to spend per person, say 4000 like in Norway and Sweden, and put that into an account for everybody in the country each year. Young children would get unlimited spending because it's political suicide to let them die of cute diseases, but once you turn five years old, you'd start to accumulate money in an account. Every year a fixed percentage (maybe 80%) would roll over, so you'd be encouraged to seek preventative treatment, but you would also be able to build up a reserve in the event of catastrophe. Then people actually have a stake in what they're spending on health care, and they won't be so keen on wasteful testing and bull****.

It's important that everybody gets some basic healthcare, as a way of controlling communicable diseases. At the same time, you can't just let them have unlimited emergency room visits for aspirin, or stupid powered go-carts for disgusting fatasses. Also, people would be encouraged to maintain healthy habits, since lung cancer or diabetes can very quickly eat up a lifetime of saving.

[Ben Kenobi]

No, I used it as a source for the life expectancy of white Americans. Feel free to look up the life expectancy of Canada yourself and find that it is over 80 years.

Look, it's your argument.

[Ben Kenobi]

I just can't believe that Republicans wouldn't give an inch in taxes to gain a yard in terms of spending.

Would you trust the highest spending administration ever to make those cuts? Expecially one that is considering unconstitutionally spending without a debt limit?

I wouldn't.

[Lorizael]

Also, people would be encouraged to maintain healthy habits, since lung cancer or diabetes can very quickly eat up a lifetime of saving.

Natural selection.

[giblets]

Look, it's your argument.

Holy ****, did you have some kind of accident that took away your short term memory or something? I was responding to your claim that white Americans have a higher life expectancy than white Canadians. It was your argument that you couldn't even be ****ed to provide any sources for and contradicts the actual facts. Where did you get the idea that white Americans have a higher life expectancy than white Canadians? Your *******?

[Ben Kenobi]

Holy ****, did you have some kind of accident that took away your short term memory or something? I was responding to your claim that white Americans have a higher life expectancy than white Canadians.

Yeah, and you seem putout when you cited American stats without considering Canadians. If you're going to make a claim, you gotta prove it.

It was your argument that you couldn't even be ****ed to provide any sources for and contradicts the actual facts. Where did you get the idea that white Americans have a higher life expectancy than white Canadians? Your *******?

For 2007 male Canadians LE was 78.3, female was 83.

Still not showing proof. Sorry.

If you go to 65, the difference is only .9 for the men. Most of life expectancy is infant mortality.

Edit, and I figured out why. White, + hispanic is included in the US data, but not the Canadian data. Again, different risk pools, different outcomes.

[giblets]

Yeah, and you seem putout when you cited American stats without considering Canadians. If you're going to make a claim, you gotta prove it.



For 2007 male Canadians LE was 78.3, female was 83.

Still not showing proof. Sorry.

If you go to 65, the difference is only .9 for the men. Most of life expectancy is infant mortality.

Edit, and I figured out why. White, + hispanic is included in the US data, but not the Canadian data. Again, different risk pools, different outcomes.

For 2007, male white Americans LE was 75.9, female was 80.8 . Thank you for providing stats for the same year for Canada. By comparing them we can see a gap of 2.2-2.4 years.

Hispanics have a higher life expectancy than whites, so they couldn't possibly be dragging down the white life expectancy in the data. Sorry Ben, a non-hispanic white in the US lives a couple years less on average than a non-hispanic white in Canada. Your initial claim:

Are you gaging 'better than average outcomes' from the studies claiming that Canadians live longer?

Statistically, white Americans live longer than white Canadians. Correct for other variables and Canada's system does a worse job.

was a total fabrication.

[notyoueither]

The Canadian data does not remove poorer demographics. It's for all Canadians.