Thread: What should State sponsored medical care cover?

Originally Posted by adaher

That's actually disputed by a lot of studies, and in practice the single-payer states all prioritize emergency care rather than preventive care.

More emergency care becomes necessary when there is a lack of preventative care.

Any system that really puts an emphasis on preventive care won't tolerate long wait times. Quick diagnoses are crucial to saving lives.

Long wait times are a global problem because of a shortage of medical personnel.

Originally Posted by Hoplite

Long wait times are a global problem because of a shortage of medical personnel.

Another example of a liberal statement that makes sense as long as you don't think about it. Is it because of a shortage of medical personnel? Or something else? Here's a hint: it's related to the cost of medical care, too. Maybe some of you have elderly relatives, someone who is in their 80s or 90s. I was just talking to someone about this in real life. His grandmother was in her 90s and was constantly being hospitalized. Now, that's great and all, but it wasn't actually doing anything. So basically our medicine was able to get her through each crisis and buy her a few months until her next crisis. That's the majority of what we spend our money on. Our population is getting older and older and we're able to, by sheer force of will, keep them alive at great cost and with the work of lots of people. As I said, it's amusing because we demand that people feed and bathe and even turn our elderly citizens in bed, just so we can proudly say "look at how compassionate we are!" And then we never visit or see them or talk to them or give two craps. What great people we are.

But what it allows is for people like Hoplite -- who have nothing to do with the care of the sick -- to stand at a distance and say "someone should do something about that." Notice how all these liberals have the great enthusiasm to pass bills and such and they can exhort and demand more from doctors, but meanwhile they're sitting at home eating nachos and watching television and belching contentedly? That's the liberal way. They can't start up their own business, but they certainly can sit around and rail about businessmen.

Originally Posted by adaher

I don't dispute that Germany's system is excellent, but there are always some things that the state just can't afford if it wants health care costs to be reasonable for the citizenry. That is always going to mean older, proven treatments for the masses, while the rich get access to the new wonder drugs and machines.

Although in the US, private insurance often covers the newest stuff, which is one reason why private insurance is so expensive and we pay so much for health care.

In the US insurance companies routinely deny coverage for new procedures and treatments, declaring them "experimental".

Originally Posted by goober

In the US insurance companies routinely deny coverage for new procedures and treatments, declaring them "experimental".

As does Medicare.

Yeah, but so what? You guys didn't realize that government-based healthcare leads to rationing? Most people are like "even though I'm not paying for anything, I expect the most advanced care, or else there's something wrong!!" Like, you can take a random homeless guy and if he's "supposed" to be getting an MRI, then we have to get one and forget the cost.

Originally Posted by goober

In the US insurance companies routinely deny coverage for new procedures and treatments, declaring them "experimental".

They do deny many things. It depends on your plan. Many gold plated plans give access to treatments only the rich can afford elsewhere. Of course, the existence of gold plated plans creates a privileged class, something to be expected in a country without universal care.

In order to properly debate the worth of universal health care, though, we need to be clear on the pros and cons of the systems vs. what we have here. Liberals complain about all the deception and propaganda about single-payer systems coming from the right, but they themselves deceive when they claim that everyone gets access to everything under universal health care. There are limits, just like with private insurance, and some private insurance plans are more generous than some national plans. If a private insurance company acted like the NHS, it would be pilloried as heartless and greedy.

Originally Posted by adaher

Of course, the existence of gold plated plans creates a privileged class, something to be expected in a country without universal care.

Again, so what? You mean, if someone pays for something then the fact that they get more than someone who pays nothing is shocking or scandalous?

Not scandalous at all, especially since universal health care only serves to undermine these usually union plans. The reason it's so hard to reform health care in this country isn't just conservative opposition: Medicare and union health insurance plans are both more generous than what exists in most universal health care countries. They'd have to take less so that others could get more, and Democrats aren't about to sell out their most important political supporters based on mere ideological principles.

Originally Posted by C-B-M

Yeah, but so what? You guys didn't realize that government-based healthcare leads to rationing? Most people are like "even though I'm not paying for anything, I expect the most advanced care, or else there's something wrong!!" Like, you can take a random homeless guy and if he's "supposed" to be getting an MRI, then we have to get one and forget the cost.

Well, that was kind of the point of the OP. What is reasonable for the State to cover? We certainly don't want the indigent just littering the sidewalks but we also don't want to have to absorb the cost of all manner of preventative care and "extraordinary" measures of life preservation. Basically, we want to make sure that people are treated with dignity.

Originally Posted by adaher

Not scandalous at all, especially since universal health care only serves to undermine these usually union plans. The reason it's so hard to reform health care in this country isn't just conservative opposition: Medicare and union health insurance plans are both more generous than what exists in most universal health care countries. They'd have to take less so that others could get more, and Democrats aren't about to sell out their most important political supporters based on mere ideological principles.

ahoy Adaher,

correct me if i be wrong, but didn't conservatives put to sea with thar rhetoric machine when President Obama's ACA attempted to trim the cost 'o medicare by scarin' the daylights outta seniors? lets be honest, neither party hath shown much stomach in takin' one single cent outta medicare...the know the opposin' party will crucify'm fer doin' so. they also know senior citizens, a potent votin' block, will make thar displeasure felt at the polls.

- MeadHallPirate

Republicans did take advantage of it, but Republicans have never been opposed to cutting Medicare. What Republicans were opposed to was Democrats taking all the legitimate cost savings from Medicare, and rather than reducing the deficit, creating a new entitlement out of it. Now there's a lot less low hanging spending fruit to pick, but we still have a huge deficit. Now the only way to cut the deficit is to actually cut Medicare deeply.

Originally Posted by adaher

Republicans did take advantage of it, but Republicans have never been opposed to cutting Medicare. What Republicans were opposed to was Democrats taking all the legitimate cost savings from Medicare, and rather than reducing the deficit, creating a new entitlement out of it. Now there's a lot less low hanging spending fruit to pick, but we still have a huge deficit. Now the only way to cut the deficit is to actually cut Medicare deeply.

ahoy Adaher,

'tis goin' to have to be a mixture 'o lettin' the Bush era tax cuts expire, as they were meant to....and aye, cuttin' the military and medicare.

regardin' the military, a conservative is goin' to have to do the cuttin' - regardin' medicare, well, thats goin' to have to be a liberal; fer the same reasons that it had to be Nixon that went to China. lets see if it happens, imma skeptical it can in this environment.

aye.

- MeadHallPirate

Defense spending is getting cut automatically and deeply when the budget supercommittee fails. As well as some pretty deep domestic spending cuts. Personally, I don't care if they make a deal.