Healthcare Reform Thread

[Ramo]

I'm pretty sure I got a fractured ankle a few months ago, didn't go to the doctor either. Dislocated kneecap was, um, somewhat different in terms of mobility and pain. Also I had to be carefully removed from an inflatable suomo suit. Yeah, ambulance and emergency room were a large majority.

[Kuciwalker]

The issue with a lot of treatments is that it is in the publics interest to do them to save costs later.

For example, if the knee was fixed after the first time, it would save the public from repeatedly paying for the same ailment over and over again. Besides decreasing the cost to society in work lost.

I think that national public health shuold be focused on preventative measures and on doing what is needed to decrease the likelyhood of future visits.

JM

I hear this repeated a lot, but it's non-obvious to me why preventative care should necessarily be cheaper than acute care.

(More precisely, why preventative care should prevent more $$ of acute care than it costs, since in reality you'll still need both.)

[Jon Miller]

A lot of disease/etc is caused by obesity, lack of exercise, eating bad for you stuff/etc.

It would cost almost nothing to fix these causes of the problems.

And millions (billions?) are spent on diabetes alone, which is ignoring all the other results of unhealthy living.

Similarly, going into the doctor and getting a breast or prostate exam provides a relatively inexpensive procedure, and if the cancer is caught early it is much cheaper to cure than if it is caught later (+ the costs to society to deal with the person and lost of productivity if it is caught later).

Also, dental cleanings are cheap. Fixing dental problems are expensive, this is why dental insurance has cleanings free...

In every case I can think of, preventative health is much much much cheaper than curing the results. This is also the case when you compare health care in the US versus other countries. Some of the reason we pay so much more, for so much less, is because our health care and culture isn't focused on prevention. It isn't just the inefficiencies in private insurance.

As part of the prevention, I would raise taxes on a lot of things like soda pop. And obviously end the subsidies on corn (which makes it more worth while to put corn syrup in everything).

JM

[Kuciwalker]

It would cost almost nothing to fix these causes of the problems.

It would cost almost nothing to radically change many people's behaviors?

In every case I can think of, preventative health is much much much cheaper than curing the results.

That's assuming preventative health has a 100% success rate.

[KrazyHorse]

For example, if the knee was fixed after the first time, it would save the public from repeatedly paying for the same ailment over and over again. Besides decreasing the cost to society in work lost.

a) Surgery is goddamned expensive compared to relatively minor costs of readjusting a knee and bracing.

b) "Society" only loses taxes paid during the individual's work, as to a first approximation individuals are paid their marginal product pretax. And most people who cannot afford to get surgery/do not have insurance produce damned little, and are thus taxed very lightly.

[KrazyHorse]

I hear this repeated a lot, but it's non-obvious to me why preventative care should necessarily be cheaper than acute care.

(More precisely, why preventative care should prevent more $$ of acute care than it costs, since in reality you'll still need both.)

Particularly in a case like this. Surgery of any kind is really expensive. Minor orthopedic adjustments are not.

[KrazyHorse]

Basically, Jon: you are claiming MAJOR inefficiencies in the behaviour of most people when it comes to preventative care (particularly that they don't get enough) and that a relatively minor amount of money will fix this. That seems pretty absurd to me. Unless you're going to provide some numbers to back yourself up then I'm going to have to call bull**** on this. For an experimentalist you seem damn fond of theorizing with no evidence when it comes to economics and related fields.

[Zkribbler]

Single payer is total crap. You don't want it.

Single-payer that is grossly underfunded as in Canada is total crap.

--But Canada still does have universal, free health care which costs the Canadian taxpayers far, far less than Americans in total pay for their health care. Canadians also have a longer lifespan and a smaller infant mortality rate [as do the citizens of EVERY country which has single payer].

[DinoDoc]

Because "the reforms being discussed" is specifically the public option. That's the score for a plan that doesn't include any public option (and any realistic option would be deficit neutral wrt the rest of the legislation).

Let's deal specifically with the Kennedy bill:

A leading health care bill under consideration in Congress would cost the government an estimated $1 trillion over the next decade and reduce the ranks of the uninsured by about one-third, or 16 million individuals, congressional budget officials said Monday in a preliminary estimate.

...

http://www.reflector.com/news/nation...rs-664629.html

That's a hell of a lot of money to only reduce the uninsured by 1/3. I'd also like to know where your think the government is going to get the money to fund this if not through taxpayer funding. Will they pay for it with rainbows and the dreams of little girls?

[DaShi]

DD, there's enough ignorance in this thread. No need for you to add more.

[Ramo]

Let's deal specifically with the Kennedy bill:

http://www.reflector.com/news/nation/cbo-senate-bill-1-trillion-over-10-years-664629.html

That's a hell of a lot of money to only reduce the uninsured by 1/3.

That estimate scores an incomplete bill. It doesn't include either the employer or individual mandates, both widely acknowledged to be pivotal parts of the HELP bill. It also doesn't include the public option, incidentally.

I'd also like to know where your think the government is going to get the money to fund this if not through taxpayer funding. Will they pay for it with rainbows and the dreams of little girls?

You have no frame of reference. You're like a child who wanders into the middle of a movie, and keeps asking inane questions.

[DinoDoc]

That estimate scores an incomplete bill. It doesn't include either the employer or individual mandates, both widely acknowledged to be pivotal parts of the HELP bill. It also doesn't include the public option, incidentally.

I don't see how that is going to actually help your case but if you can link to a CBO review that you would consider to be more complete, I would be interested in reading it. Specifically these magical formulas that detail how they plan to fund it without in your words "one iota of funding from the tax payer."

You're like a child who wanders into the middle of a movie, and keeps asking inane questions.

I'm starting to agree with Drake's assessment of you.

[DaShi]

I'm starting to agree with Drake's assessment of you.

Well, that's only because you are incapable of forming your own opinions.

[Ramo]

I don't see how that is going to actually help your case but if you can link to a CBO review that you would consider to be more complete, I would be interested in reading it.

The chairman's markup isn't complete. A realistic score will come out after that happens (HELP has been procrastinating, so there's no telling when - but I'd expect in the next couple weeks).

Specifically these magical formulas that detail how they plan to fund it without in your words "one iota of funding from the tax payer."

It's pretty remarkable that you still have absolutely no clue what I was referring to when I used those words. Only you, Dino.

On second thought, Ben could pull this off too.

[Arrian]

What about the Dole/Daschle plan? I don't know anything about it, yet, other than its "bipartisan" billing as reported (ever so briefly) on NPR.

-Arrian